J K 

a<5T4 

Th, 














*SH_lafejf 4 .0 0 . _ 

, + * r\ C- y ^ 

S V, ,» s .0- -O b 0 ' ^ 

V. Ml' n. s » * > '/i. 

> Oi^ s S 1 /, C\ 

r , ,£. A* * - -v , 

^ <£ •» v- | j ^ 1 'V \ V 

- ' X ^ V" 5 V* & 

<\ 2± '«* ' 4i ' 

V , V I » * 

\ v 


" v-" j " - h ^ ' W r ' : 

/ % *, WM* O o c 6 ', 1^.' 

^ - » ' A ,.»,%*■" </ svv^ *c- ” s “ X.' 

,^'v ■ >,;. %/ . 

- •'* *' : ? ■ fcu \ > f * s M . 1 : , >. 


</. u * ' A 

o. 

o -1 '0> 

-o 

v . v . ■< O o' 
l „ * j -f, 

W ^ ~ o» . 

> > > \ \ <* N' 

/ ,.. S'**"“"-V°- 

7 v * / ^ 

%„ y> '^i'A"- 

_ A z 

$ % 

*v < 



■o? -° Nf,/p /% 

( * c-SS'f / ^ 

■f < tr^k y 

o' .- 

>-' > \V- *U. <* *5 

^ V> «. ' * 0 ' > 

qa * 

r* 



‘fj. ' l~ *' ''' ^ C y 

P \V % *« 1 ' S V , 0 

,> ov>'-fc> v> > a 0 ' v 

A' , .i^ -"a, x v- «< 5 *r A * 

■' * , %. .<? -j^ y nCo 

*r ; ^ - 

<J>' '<>. 

# « 'V 





V - , 

. V </* /_ < 

vV' .n o 

*^' <P“. ^ 




,^' c o « c ^ ' ' * * ' ,.^ X . > 1 • < ' J ' ! l 

°o , 

o« 


\ O v ' 

^ 8 l ' " A > s * * / V 

.0 ' .. ', c 

A ^ -^-ZThK. 

<\ <v 


NJs- v ^ '%. '* ■ 

V*'n.’* / .. . 

r ' %^ %4 K _ 

■ /%■ : ;-&v ^ a 

'■?, '«. ■. ■* -o <• »'. s s .0 .,, ■?/, y »■■' 

V ' 8 * ^ p,^ . 0 ^ «- ^ <6 A v o' 1 8 « .0* 

-t *2 0° ®\x^ v ^ * je/r???-,''* 

' < -S' ^a.. y a' &'y/4 - - * 




" o’i--. 

|° ^ 

^ - \V xp, 


v! » 


o? , o N c « '<i> 

.$> ^ oo' ° 

y ■’’ \v- ^f. * ^ 

■S) f~> y ^KsA 0 o o *- ' ' \ rx 

£; 0 ' ...,\'>»<’ x \ %x *>■ *'••■’* -k° 

O' s V_ ; p 7 o V ^ " 0 ^ ^ 

V °J" ^ ^ - V,^ v "o L' 

O j 



2 , ■?> 

^ ^ == ,,™-.w - v -- 

H X’ r 

.' o 

- c0 * ^ 

‘ N * 

* % ^ ~> r 

v . 5 Vv. 

w - - ■* cJ ' y v . 

y 0 * v * <G <, '< i S S v ‘\ 

,^\o *,.=.; - °o o o> .' !^- ^ \ yjz ■ 4 
; ■% v* : f ■ ' ' ' 

, X 0o „. ' 

s 

c> ■ y x> <ss^ <» o 
A Vl ° , h 0 N 0 \V 

O \> 

c.0 * 




> ^ 
’^. y 



r?> 2 -, • *^ o ■> ^w-. y 'c v v 

v ' <;V ' \, P, v"» 0 

?; ; oo x v 

-' y ; 

' > 50 * rf. < 

« Vl ■ ri- , 


X 0 o x. 



r A ^ <-■ X s " O 0 

r; >. ^ 1 I ' # 

0 t s 





p V % ' * . 

/ sfj ^ <x 

s '*- V#' ; .(i 0= -%4 

n ^ 


o> 


X .jy. . 




..., , . « 

/y C lo 

y - X 

t xP 0 ^' ^ 

</' \V « . 

-, I ■ X' : * * 

-A . O > > 


V’^ ^ A V " c •' ■'> % ••: a .. 

■\ V' ° /,, - ■. % 0>° c»- - 

O ^ ^ ^ ^ y-OyO "/ f --^ l , o -Lih*-- 

A ^ y >, ^ ^ -• ^ 

D' ? * , y ' V 






, 0 o 


\V 

V ' 


/ > 



% 

^ v 

Or 

O 

.^ v 

'^p. 

o 

•-> 



v * 

o , Kr t' v 

* > *«,"">*’ 1 ' '• > 
s - ■*. t 0 '. 



% " A^ X * V ’ ' * '' 

y 'P T> v S /v> 2 , -f 

■. y / : ,««& .' 




o' ; '... 
V , A - f:. 

0 J O ' » ' s ^ i 0 > " $•' ^5> '• 

v sVI^.\ *V 


^0 


r 




r* 




























•V 


0 


0 


o ' ft „ 

> A '* o 

* ,**“•; *% ' 

<?’ «\. 
: ^ ^ 


* ^ rJ > + * 


X- n 0 ' ' c r ‘fMXS? .' A % *, 

...,;- < xo s ? ^ ^ 

* 



HA A % <A *' 

« Jv.-Vj->y. h ^ 7* 

A •• .--a - 



-\ 

o ^ a ^ 

v o\> 

?/- 7 "» ^ ^0 < A " 

. °o 0 °■% " ' 4 


A‘' * 


0 « 


. , C\ y fi O P r > i- 

< ' ' * ' v . . , * » » » > ^ y , 

^ s A c* v * ' * 0 A 

' -f* >• ^3 a o 

° Af . JfA ' A> ^ 

<. ^ v' %. * wL.-v 

x A 0 , a a 0 X <* A s % A 


V . 0 s '• 


O k ' s 
A • v 

A <V* * 

HA H 

r^, # fSf c^ -i o 

"' a\' ..... %_ '" '* A 


A 


2 0' ! 0 '* :■ 


' * a* 'A *■ 

A x %. x 

♦ - ■ - 5 v* v 4 ° v 


'P v 

s X, \\ 

' *^V A x 



4 %'°o c°> 

» ” 00 ' fa 

^ ® Ha /• ^ 
* * * * 0 * 0 \ \ NX ' , , 0 , ^ 


y n v’ * 



r 0 k " c 0 ' A A 

*, aAA x '^L v 

■' A V* 

O 

\° ^ * * 




s «5 

■» \ V A * 

A v ^ 1 * *'‘ s »>' A) 

/ ^ ' * 0 a > 8 1 s s ’ ° / 

rCC\ /% a ,A' X * cSl&t * <!n H' *r 


’o 0 X ® , £ 

?v -‘ -/. : »;•- SU. 

' .<• ^ * ‘-tiyjih 

O * I C T-M/ 


0 N 0 ’ A' ! 


'A ^ j | i' a0 O 

H > .o> s^-.; H 

c. H * €%&'• 1 

V* V ° A -v r* 




'.^ A e J - ...... 

r> t> • A' <4. 

O / n , ■* .'. 

^ a :.;a' , H a 


S' 

%s 

. * • , ' ^7- * a i» » ' S A » , , , 

' '', % 0 »' *"a -> a ° a, '"c 

*' ‘ - H. av .aVa ' H * ifflfiS'. .V 

•*• . * .• l ,r r J ' "^V S S *4>4& 

..».<..• x .nnV /\ t ri 

<?j c 0 V ',C« ' ‘ *, '*• **'\^ A V .“»« %'“"' 0 ->° ON C H A ' 

^ 0 ,*^W' H A 0 'Hx' H H 

'A A c r , V v:..i/ % ^ A " '-y v x 'H'NVVaA. ^ r<j A X 

2 0 ; A ■< on' ® /svA^lLr% r v- >? 




\ 


0o. 


C; 




% - % cS 

° t $ ^ ° \. . 

« '> ->> ^ v ^ 

—x, \ 

^ j \ s A o 

^ * *' ^ .. ■ •. ■> 

* ,•■* . 

A' , -f 

*a k r »'^. a 



^ \ v v^“ ' 

%'♦ a ;. 5 * \^' 


'C 

cJf. '*„,.» N 'O' 

"> ’ 0> s" 7 /f '*1 

A ' v ^ A. 

N v aV' 

t/' ^ V 


o 0 

x ^ <*>. ■ * ' 

C^_ 4- 


O’ % 

^ « - v T- 





- vV </> ^ L, //r 

o° l - .CA '*■*'> 


o o 


A. ^ o H -7V >■ 

A * ^ >• . . s > - ^ ^ * 

■\ ►' ^ x ^ CL • r^* /*- 

• ... .X' 



A x% \ ^ 

c A ,. , ^ 



X* 


kS *&9bL?'' v> A 


/ 


. A N ^ s y£> 


ft t '"o vX 

" ® A 

> \V- ^ 

-X.- <■ O X rjy 

‘no' A v % 

V> ^ ^ * 0 f 


. i c . 




















BULLETIN 

University of Kentucky 

University Extension Series 
December, 1923 

DIRECT PRIMARIES 



Entered as second class matter, February 2, 1922, at the Post Office at 
Lexing-ton, Kentucky, under the Act of August 24, 1912. Acceptance for 
mailing- at the special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of 
October 3, 1917, authorized February 13, 1922, 


Volume 2 



No. 6 










DIRECT PRIMARIES 


A Debate Handbook 



John Catron Jones, M. A., Assistant Professor of History 
and Political Science, University of Kentucky 

and 

Koscoe Cross, A. B., Assistant, Department of History and 
Political Science, University of Kentucky 



Published by the University of Kentucky 


D. P —1 





Copyright 1923 

By the University of Kentucky 


UOF CONGRESS 


FEB 21 1935 

• __ A.- «l» . ^ 


{ • l 



Authors' Preface 

The authors of this manual for the use of high school de¬ 
baters have made an honest effort to outline and develop the 
question impartially. Whether their efforts have been success¬ 
ful will of necessity be left to the judgment of those in whose 
hands it is placed. If it be found that such is not the case, they 
sincerely hope that the error will be attributed to the head and 
not to the heart. No one can go very far into such a subject 
without unconsciously arriving at certain convictions, but those 
convictions need not make him a staunch advocate for one side 
or the other. Usually they are convictions that each side has 
serious defects. Preparation for a debate upon this subject will 
undoubtedly have that effect. That is one of the chief merits 
in debating a question which is of such vital interest to every 
American citizen. 

It has been estimated by the authors that it cost the people 
more than a billion dollars to elect President Harding as Presi¬ 
dent of the United States, yet we got Mr. Coolidge for nothing. 
It is doubted if the country suffered a billion dollar loss in the 
exchange. The authors also estimated that it cost the people of 
Kentucky $5,000,000 to elect a governor in 1923. We wonder 
if the same man could not have been obtained much cheaper. 

The following are some of the items on which the estimate 
of the cost in Kentucky was based: 


300 candidate and party headquarters, for an average 

period of four months, at $100 a month. $120,000 

10,000 speeches (two for each precinct) at $25. 250,000 

20,000 election officers at $4 (two days at $2). 80,000 

Ballots and election equipment .:. 200,000 

10,000 workers, four months’ time, at $100 a month. 4,000,000 

10,000 automobiles, two days, at $10 a day, to get out 

the vote . 200,000 


These estimates are not given as facts. They are merely 
suggestions based upon narrow observations, but if they have 
a half truth in them they are suggestive of a much needed 
remedy in our election systems. 








4 


University of Kentucky 


These expenditures in money, time and effort by party work¬ 
ers may be given for the good of the cause. On the other hand 
we verily suspect that a great deal of it is given with the hope 
of obtaining something in return. The question might well be 
asked, what possible return can this army of 10,000 men and 
women receive at the hands of the government? We shall men¬ 
tion a few means by which political workers have been reim¬ 
bursed in times past. 

1. Political Office which carries with it more salary or 
other remuneration than the service rendered justified. 

2. Honors. Appointment of the rich or well to do on com¬ 
missions of high honor. There are only a few of these to be 
given out by the state government yet it is a fact that there are 
scores of Kentucky colonels, all politicians or friends of poli¬ 
ticians, whose only known duty is to bear up under the heavy 
honor of “colonel.” 

3. Taxation. Undervaluation of property is only another 
means of rewarding a taxpayer with so many dollars. 

4. Immunity from the Law. It is a well established fact 
that there are certain men who are almost wholly immune from 
the law. If any officer should make the mistake of arresting 
such a person, the political wires begin to work and he is soon 
set free. 

5. Contracts. This is a fruitful source for rewarding 
many workers. It includes building contracts, road construction, 
and all sorts of supplies bought by the government. For ex¬ 
ample, Pennsylvania’s new state capitol cost the state nine mil¬ 
lion dollars. A conservative estimate shows that it could have 
been built for two million. 

6. Using Government Funds. This runs right down to 
county and township. For instance, the custodian of public 
funds may receive a certain per cent (say 2%) on daily balance 
for public money deposited. Often in small towns and counties 

one finds politicians divided into two factions, adherents of the 
two banks. 


Authors , Preface 


5 


7. Franchise Grants. Corporations and private individ¬ 
uals may not want office nor honor, but merely to be let alone 
to exploit the public, selling watered stock, or what not. 

8. Rings. 11 Rings ’ ’ may work and give money for the 
election of a particular candidate being assured that if he wins 
they can carry on their lawlessness unmolested. For example, 
a “rum ring,” a handbook, or bucket shop. 

9. Underworld. These groups, far more numerous and 
influential than many of us suspect, give money, votes and time 
for immunity from prosecution. 

These are only a few means of getting paid back for all 
their time, money, and effort invested, which we estimate at five 
million. It is certain also that they get a very high rate of in¬ 
terest on their investment. Who pays the bills? Undoubtedly 
it is the people who pay the bills in the end. They pay it in 
higher taxes, sometimes grudgingly. If they all knew how their 
money was spent they would pay it far more grudgingly. 

If debate on methods of nominations, though it be only 
one phase, howbeit an important one, of our election system, 
will in a small measure give our people better understanding 
of the government under which we live, we shall feel fully paid 
for the small part we have played in opening up the question. 

J. C. J. 

R.C. 

University of Kentucky, 

November 15, 1923. 


Editors' Preface 

This bulletin on Direct Primaries has been prepared for 
debate among the high schools of the State of Kentucky. Be¬ 
fore preparing this bulletin this question was submitted to the 
high school officers of the State of Kentucky for their opinion 
as to the suitability of this question for debate during the com¬ 
ing year. They were almost unanimous in their approval of 
this subject. 

In presenting this question for debate we do so with the 
feeling that it is a question of general public interest and one 
about which all citizens should be informed. It presents an 
opportunity for the high school student to study problems in 
citizenship. Every citizen must come face to face with the ques¬ 
tion of voting and the question of party machinery and party 
government. It is particularly appropriate that questions of 
this kind should be discussed, studied and understood by all 
young people in the high school. 

The teaching of citizenship is very often an academic af¬ 
fair. It is believed that the discussing of a public question of 
this kind will enable teachers more effectively to teach good 
citizenship. It is, therefore, hoped that a lot of practical good 
may be done, and it is with this hope that this publication is 
prepared and presented to the youth of this State. 

Students very often get the wrong idea of leadership. Often 
we are prone to believe that there is corruptness in leadership 
when there is no corruptness, but our wrong impressions are 
merely due to our own lack of information. The following quo¬ 
tation from Popular Government by Hall is apropos: 

“There is in every party a hierarchy of leaders, or political 
bosses. These are the men, who, by virtue of their dominant 
personalities, executive ability, and capacity to handle men, are 
the real moving spirits in party affairs. They may be party com¬ 
mitteemen, public officers, or merely practical politicians whose 
political skill, devotion to party interest, and commanding person¬ 
alities have given them dominant positions in the counsels of the 
party. In this respect, political parties are no different from other 


Editors’ Preface 


7 


groups of individuals. Every successful church has its little group 
of men whose loyalty to the organization, whose personality, ex¬ 
ecutive ability, and interest in its achievements, make them the 
dominant forces in shaping its destiny. We call them the pillars 
of the church. Every successful commercial club has its little 
coterie of leaders, men whose vision, forcefulness, and devotion 
furnish the leadership, the dynamics, and the efforts that insure 
success. We call them the leaders of the community, the ‘live 
wires’ of business. But for the men who take the dominant in¬ 
terest in politics, do the work, furnish the energy and supply 
leadership, we reserve unmeasured condemnation. We call them 
‘bosses/ We are told that they are petty, partisan, selfish, and 
occasionally corrupt. But these qualifications are not peculiar 
to politicians. They are, unfortunately, peculiar to the human 
race. 

“As contemptible partisanship as the author has ever seen 
has been at a church convention, and yet he is an enthusiastic 
churchman in spite of it. He never knew a church, a commercial 
club, or any other kind of organized group that did not frequently 
forget its ultimate mission or goal and become entangled in the 
meshes of partisanship, selfishness, and bigotry, and yet these in¬ 
stitutions are important forces in our community life. We do not 
propose to abolish them because of these evils, nor to rob them 
of their leaders because frequently they may be partisan or 
tyrannical. The same wholesome attitude toward political parties 
will aid greatly in approaching intelligently the problems that 
they presenc. We can no more abolish leadership in politics than 
we can in education, industry, or the church. Much fine-spun 
theory has been evolved from time to time, discriminating be¬ 
tween political bosses and leaders, but it is useless. For purposes 
of practical politics the distinction is obvious. The dominant 
personalities in my party are leaders, but in your party they are 
bosses. The political arrangements of my party constitute an 
organization, but a similar arrangement in your party becomes an 
iniquitous machine.” 

WELLINGTON PATRICK, 

Director of University Extension. 





■ 





< 


















O r 










Brief For Debate 






Direct Primaries 


11 


SUGGESTED BRIEF 

The brief that follows is intended to serve as a working 
basis for those high school students who expect to work with the 
question submitted this year for inter-high school debating in 
Kentucky. 

This suggested brief has been prepared without any interest 
in the issues of the question. It is not to be assumed that alt 
arguments of the two sides have been included. The purpose 
has been to present the two view points without developing ad¬ 
vantages for either side. 

Therefore, the student is not to accept this as all inclusive, 
but it is expected that he will take it, and alter it or add to it 
in whatever way he may be prompted to do, as the result of 
further study of the question. 

Resolved, That the system of direct primary nomination is 
preferable to that of nomination by caucus and convention. 

Affirmative 

I. Convention system not satisfactory. 

A. Convention, not actually representative of voters. 

1, Voters do not attend in large percentages. 

a. Fair publicity not given to convention meet¬ 
ings. 

(1) Effort by one faction to exclude interest 
of another. 

(2) Held semi-secretly. 

(3) At inconvenient times. 

b. . Useless to attend. 

(1) Chairman arbitrary in decisions. 

(2) Action of convention controlled by ma¬ 
chine. 

(3) Procedures prearranged. 

(4) Individual counts for nothing. 


12 University of Kentucky 

2. Elected delegates forget their responsibility. 

a. Cannot present to voters his position on every 
issue that may arise at convention. 

(1) Must act on own judgment in supporting 
new issues. 

b. At convention, discovers additional men, previ¬ 
ously unheard of. 

c. Betrays obligation to voters for selfish advan¬ 
tage. 

d. Does not independently work out new issues 
at the convention. “Follows the crowd.” 

e. A delegate may transfer his credentials for 
pay to an unscrupulous substitute or ‘‘proxy.” 

B. Convention fails, in the application of its theory of pro¬ 
cedure. 

1. Not a deliberative, unhampered body. 

a. Many members have their course of action 
already mapped out by local leaders. 

b. Violence, disorder, and fraudulent manipula¬ 
tion possible. 

(1) Stampedes possible. 

c. Character of delegates chosen. 

(1) Cooke County illustration. 

2. Dominated by the 11 machine.” 

a. Discourges interest of voters in affairs of party. 

b. Choice of chairman depends on approval of 
bosses. 

c. Machine will endorse only men amenable to its 
control. 

d. Recognition of delegates controlled by ma¬ 
chine. 

(1) May control credentials committee. 

(2) Able to eliminate troublesome elements. 

e. Chosen candidates feel obligated to machine 
rather than to voters. 


Direct Primaries 


13 


3. Improper influences upon delegates. 

a. Sectional interests encourage vote trading. 

b. After first ballot carry out instructions, dele¬ 
gates look for personal gain. 

(1) Seeks to support winner. 

(2) Will sell vote at his price. 

c. Lobbying by machine. 

C. Convention costly to party. 

1. Necessary expenses. 

a. Hotel costs. 

b. Publicity. 

(1) Speakers. 

(1) Advertising. 

c. Railroad fare, 
cl. Clerk hire. 

e. Convention hall plus expense of arranging it. 

2. Officials make no effort at economy. 

D. Contribution exacted from. 

1. ‘‘Interests” supporting party. 

2. Present office holders. 

3. Candidates. 

4. Individuals who may derive personal benefit from 
a party victory. 

E. Contributor expects returns in form of: 

1 Offices and political jobs. 

2. Discharge by court if he has broken law. Favorable 
interpretation of law in favor of his business. 

3. Lower assessments. 

4. State contracts at exorbitant prices. 

5. Franchise privileges. 

6. Police protection for illigimate business. 

7. Receivership and guardianship. 

II. Direct primary gives nominating power to the people. 

A. Candidate appeals directly to voters. 

1. Voters select desired party representatives, 
a. Depend on personal information. 


14 


University of Kentucky 


b. Have chance to study candidates. 

c. Make choice between men, rather than vague 
issues. 

B. Prevents domination of local by state issues. 

1. Selection of local and state officials independent of 
each other. 

2. Local elections not influenced by needs of machine 
in the state. 

C. Broadens political knowledge of electorate. 

1. Every voter increases his interest in politics. 

2. Realizes importance of his particular vote. 

a. Try to pick good candidates. 

b. Makes additional effort to exercise his priv¬ 
ilege. 

3. Feels responsibility for kind of candidate he selects. 

4. Keeps up to date on political questions. 

D. Weakens dominating influence of boss. 

1. Too costly and difficult to control entire elec¬ 
torate. 

2. Corrupt practices prevented by open general prac¬ 
tices—bribery less potent. 

E. Primary necessary in sections where one party domi¬ 
nates. 

1. In South, primary is the only real election. 

2. Same true in North. 

III. Primary insures good candidates. 

A. Cives any man chance to be a candidate. 

1. Citizens can ask any man to become candidate. 

2. Can develop own organization to break the ma¬ 
chine. 

3. Boss’ influence unnecessary. 

B. Voters may weigh relative merits of the different men. 

1. Eliminate dark horses. 

2. Candidates’ records open to investigation. 

a. Oregon assumes expense of presenting each 
man’s record to the voters. 

C. Machine control eliminated. 


Direct Primaries 


15 


IV. Brings out greater percentage of voters than participate in 
convention system. 

A. Primary more widely advertised than the convention. 

B. Takes less time. 

V. Direct primary simpler. 

A. Indirectness of selecting delegates avoided. 

B. Takes less time to complete the process. 

1. One day’s primary election does the whole thing. 

2. Cuts out the awkwardness and expense in the con¬ 
vention system that necessitates local, county, dis¬ 
trict, state, etc., conventions. 

VI. Remedies for defects in direct primary system. 

A. For minority nominations: 

1, Require majority vote for a successful candidate. 

2. Preferential voting. 

a. Washington has this system. 

B. To reduce cost to candidate. 

1. To establish a fixed limit by law. 

2. Allow the state to assume part of the expense, 
a. Oregon’s plan. 

Negative 

I. Convention system consistent with our scheme of representa¬ 
tive government. 

A. Follow? the principle of delegated authority. 

1 Our governmental functions are delegated. 

2. Confusion in large units to be avoided only by 
representation. 

B. Greater efficiency. 

1. Nominations must be satisfactory to voters because : 
a. Delegates responsible to voters. 

2. Choice based on issues, not on personal element. 

3. Careful consideration of all candidates by an en¬ 
tire delegation results in better choice. 

May draft available good men. 


4. 



16 


University of Kentucky 


C. Perfects party organization. 

1. Unified harmonious ticket. 

a. Minority element proportionally represented. 

b. Geographical distribution of candidates. 

2. Kills faction fights. Smooths over any break in 
ranks before final election. 

3. Develops party spirit and enthusiasm. 

a. Spreads thru delegates to the home districts. 

b. Brings forth greater percentage of the party’s 
strength. 

D. Selection of candidates and platform making should be 
in one body. 

1. Candidates cannot evade issues. 

a. Candidate must clearly show his stand on the 
various issues. 

2. Party committed to definite program. 

3. Electorate knows definitely what to expect. 

E. Convention system used by every church organization 
in United States, every fraternal, commercial organiza¬ 
tion, labor federation. 

II. Convention can be satisfactory. 

A. Evils are basic. 

1. Voters indifferent to calibre of delegates chosen. 

2. Do not select own delegates, but choose from lists 
of the boss. 

3. Delegates are usually sent to convention with no 
clearcut knowledge of what the voters want. 

B. Voters can overcome evils. 

1. By sending own delegates instead of boss. 

a. They will support good candidates. 

b. They will consider public good before personal 
gain. 

2. By giving definite instructions. 

a. Not in support of particular candidates. 

b. But, to stand behind definite sides of issues. 


Direct Primaries 


17 


C. Voters may choose dependable party administrators. 

1. Good party leaders necessary to success. 

a. Knowledge of practical conditions. 

b. Coordination of party workers’ efforts. 

c. Checking factions. 

2. Corrupt bosses unnecessary. 

III. Direct primary not a satisfactory substitute. 

A. Smaller party may participate in primary of stronger. 

1. Undesirable man may be chosen to represent 
stronger party. 

2. Smaller gets final victory. 

a. Really a minority victory. 

B. Plurality elections common. 

1. Many candidates prevent majority choice. 

a. No check on number of candidates. 

b. Strength of intelligent voters dissipated 
through several good candidates. 

e. In national nominations, possibility of larger 
states dominating smaller. 

2. Dummy candidates to split majorities, 
a. Weaker men slide in by plurality. 

C. Party disturbances created. 

1. Pactions fight each other in the primary. 

2. No way of pacifying factions before finals, 
a. May mean loss of support. 

3. A dominating faction may shut out smaller ele¬ 
ments. 

D. Destroys responsibility in choosing the candidates. 

1. No solid party organization. 

2. Party leadership forgotten. 

a. Pactional victories preeminent. 

3. Control of party action diffused among the fac¬ 
tions. 

4. No one responsible for good candidates. 


18 


University of Kentucky 


E. Party has no platform clearly worked out to support. 
1 No means for general consideration of issues. 

2. Candidates avoid complicated issues. 

a. Select subjects or popular interest as issues. 

F. Opportunity for corruption not diminished. 

1. Each candidate builds separate organization in the 
party. 

a. Can secure organization only by promise of 
reward. 

(1) In money. 

(2) Offices. 

(3) Graft. 

b. Henchmen must be paid for every signer of 
petition. 

c. Money can be applied directly in primary, and 
without publicity. 

d. Interests may run own candidates. 

G. Rural sections at disadvantage. 

1. Rural candidates lack publicity. 

2. No extensive acquaintance. 

3. Increased cost of campaigning. 

4. City candidates secure many county offices. 

a. Greater advantages in populous counties. 

b. Voters easily solicited. 

c. Newspaper publicity from city influences 
rural voting. 

5. Rural voters lack leaders. 

H. Cost of primaries to candidates and voters. 

1. Only wealthy men able to run. 

2. Candidates bear expense and strain of campaign. 

a. Intensive as well as extensive campaign neces¬ 
sary. 

b. Financial outlay. 

3. Double cost to voters. 

a. As taxpayers face cost of two elections. 

b. Also, contributions to party funds. 


Direct Primaries 


19 


I. Good officials not guaranteed to voters. 

1. Has not eliminated possibility of prearranged slates. 

2. Vote winning qualities, prime essential. 

3. Professional office seekers. 

a. The selfishly ambitious. 

b. Men with hobbies. 

4. Better qualified men usually modest in presenting 
their case. 

5. Office holder has advantage. 

a. Better known. 

b. Experienced in the tricks of a contest. 

c. Tried to keep well entrenched. 

6. Voters fail to investigate candidates. 

a. Accept candidate’s own statement of his vir¬ 
tues and fitness. 

b. Best known man gets the advantage. 

(1) Successful man a vote winner and not a 
champion of issues. 

(2) Position on ballot an advantage. 

7. Primaries have failed to bring forth better candi¬ 
dates. 

a. Greatest men of political history were chosen 
by conventions. 

J. Influence of press increased with the direct primary. 

1. Publicity the deciding factor. 

2. Papers usually subsidized and supported by 
partisans, and facts are twisted to favor the sup¬ 
porters. 

IV. Remedies for defects of convention system. 

A. By parties themselves : 

1. Formation of party rules to check abuses. 

2. Chairman of local delegations to hand in list of 
candidates preferred by the majority of district his 
delegation represents. 


20 


University of Kentucky 


B. By the government: 

1. Legal regulation of all methods and practices of 
the convention. 

2. Application of the referendum in upholding nom¬ 
inations made by the convention. 

The arguments here suggested are those that are generally 
offered on the subject. There are, of course, many additional 
arguments that may be offered on either side. The fact that a 
greater number of arguments are given for the affirmative than 
for the negative does not show any partiality nor does it show 
that the affirmative is the stronger side of the question. It is 
always difficult to find a question which is exactly equally bal¬ 
anced. To the authors there seem to be equally strong argu¬ 
ments for either side of this question. The fact that the country 
at large uses both systems and seems undecided as to which is 
the better of the two is an indication that it is still an open 
question. 


Party Government 








Direct Primaries 


23 


DIRECT PRIMARIES 
The History of Party Goverment 

This is a democratic nation, in fact, the mother of demo¬ 
cratic nations, the model which all other existing democracies 
have used when they have reorganized their government on a 
democratic basis. 

The theory on which our democracy is built is that it is a 
government of the people; that sovereignty is derived from the 
consent of the governed. But some means by which the people 
may express their will seems absolutely essential to popular 
sovereignty and government of the people. The chief means by 
which the will of the people can be expressed, so it is claimed by 
most authorities who have given thought to the matter, is through 
political parties. This is also the only means which experience 
has given to democratic governments. It is true that the public 
press is sometimes thought of as expressing public opinion or 
public will, but most authorities are agreed that this is not true. 
In fact, some writers claim that the press, instead of interpreting 
public opinion, as it modestly claims, actually creates public 
opinion. Such authors will say, “This is a government of the 
press by the press and for the people/’ On the other hand, 
those who see the tremendous power of the political party make 
the paraphrase thus, “This is a government of the people, by the 
party, and for the party” (and people). 

One fact seems to stand out very clearly, namely, that our 
government is for the most part managed by political parties. 
Therefore, in order to discuss this question intelligently we must 
first understand exactly how the party operates. 

It seems clear that government by political party is con¬ 
trary to the intentions of the framers of our Constitution. By 
creating the “checks and balance” system and by provision for 
indirect election of the President and Vice President they 
thought they had thoroughly fortified the government against 
the rise of party control. However, the framers of the Consti¬ 
tution themselves lived long enough to see this hope dashed 
against the rocks. The party spirit arose very early in Wash- 


24 


University of Kentucky 


ington’s administration and by the end of his first term the 
country was fairly divided into two political camps with a cer¬ 
tain degree of solidarity and party harmony. The Federalist 
party stood for strong central government, loose construction of 
the Constitution and opposed to the French alliance. The Anti¬ 
federalist party on the other hand, led by Thomas Jefferson, 
stood for a weaker central government, a strict construction of 
the Constitution and strong leanings toward a b rench alliance. 

With the possible exception of the period between 1815 and 
1825, the division of the country into two political camps has 
been continuous to the present time. The line of cleavage has 
been for the most part clear cut. The issues, however, have 
changed with the times. In one generation it was 1 loose con¬ 
struction” or “strict construction;” in another, war or no war; 
in another, bank or no bank, Texas or no Texas, slavery or no 
slavery, trusts or no trusts, gold standard or silver standard, 
tariff for revenue only or tariff for protection, A League of Na- 
tions or The League of Nations. 

The history of our country demonstrates clearly that politi¬ 
cal parties have controlled all of these issues. Indeed, it may 
be said that in the majority of cases they have not only con¬ 
trolled these policies but have actually formulated the policies 
for the country. It can hardly be denied, therefore, that our 
government, contrary to the intention of its founders, has be¬ 
come a government by political parties, carried on, of course, 
in the name of the people. 

When these parties first arose back there in the early days, 
they w 7 ere extra-legal bodies. That is to say, there w r as no law 
that governed the actions of the party. Not only were there no 
laws governing their organization and operations, but the par¬ 
ties themselves had no definite rules or regulations. Men rallied 
around certain leaders or groups of leaders and when it came 
time for them to vote they followed the advice of those leaders. 

Naturally enough the leaders were the office holders—for the 
most part, senators and representatives. All of them were on 
the hostile front, at the nation’s capitol. When great questions 
arose they arrayed themselves on different sides. 




Direct Primaries 


25 


It was out of this situation that the congressional caucus 
arose. The congressmen of opposing camps got together and 
decided which member of their party should carry the banner 
at the next election for President. Presidential nominees were 
chosen in this manner until about 1824, the end of the “Era of 
good feeling.” But things had been happening back home in 
the various states. The feeling of states rights, or better per¬ 
haps, states’ importance, had risen. The states had built their 
government on the same plan as the national government; that 
is, the checks and balances and the three equal departments of 
government. But they had done more. They had extended the 
franchise in most states to all male white citizens over 21 years 
of age. A clamor had arisen from these newly enfranchised 
voters for a voice as to w T hom their party should have for Presi¬ 
dent. A protest went up against “King Caucus” and this pro¬ 
test was so loud that “King Caucus” had to abdicate from his 
throne. Yet no system had been devised to take his place. In 
this interim between 1824 and 1836 candidates were nominated 
largely by the resolutions of state legislatures. 

•By 1832, however, a way had been found for making nomi¬ 
nations. The suggestion came from the Anti-Masonic party 
which called a convention to meet at Baltimore to consider the 
selection of a candidate and issues. The Whig party followed 
their example. Later the Democratic party copied this method 
of nominating its candidates, and by 1840 the two major political 
parties had definitely established the convention system of select¬ 
ing their nominees. 

It must be understood that throughout the whole process of 
development of the party machinery, the government itself took 
no cognizance of it. Here we see the rise of an institution, the 
political party organization, that was destined to take over and 
control our government even to the minutest details. It was to 
be the instrument of making our laws, electing our officers, ap¬ 
pointing officers and directing national as well as local policy but 
in no instance was the action of the party subject to legal re* 
straint. It was an extra-legal institution towering over the legal 
institutions, the government itself. 


26 


University of Kentucky 


Follows then a slow process of legalizing the actions of the 
political party. That process is still going on and is far from 
complete. For instance, more than twenty-six states have laws 
fixing the manner of selection of delegates to the national con¬ 
ventions in both Republican and Democratic parties, but once the 
convention is assembled there are no laws governing its method 
of procedure. 


The Direct Primary 







Direct Primaries 


29 


THE DIRECT PRIMARY 

In 1856 the direct primary system was introduced in Craw¬ 
ford County, Pennsylvania. A few years later the direct 
primary was made optional in the state of California. The 
movement then spread far and wide throughout the entire 
United States until today there is not a state which does not have 
direct primary elections in some form or other. 

In some states the primary is optional. In others it is com¬ 
pulsory. In some states it is used for all nominations to elec¬ 
tive offices. In others, it is used in only a part of the elective 
offices. 

The greatest impetus has been given to the primary during 
the last twenty years. It has taken the nation by storm and has 
promised a panacea for all political ills. It has promised, among 
other things, the elimination of the political “boss,” to open 
the door for the candidate of moderate means, to educate the 
electorate, to select higher types of men to office, and finally to 
make possible the full realization of a rule by the people. If it 
had accomplished all of these things the question would not be 
a debatable one. That it has failed to accomplish the many 
things claimed for it leads many people to argue with some 
justice that it is not an improvement over the indirect primary, 
that is, the convention system. 

It is argued by the supporters of the convention system that 
the primary instead of bringing out better candidates has begot 
men of a lower order. That instead of doing awmy with bosses 
it has simply widened the field of their operations. That in¬ 
stead of establishing true democracy, rule by the people, it has 
rendered the great multitude helpless by asking it to perform 
a duty which it is incapable of performing. 

It is argued that under the indirect system the voter w r as 
only asked to select one of its own men to act for it. That it 
was fully capable of making such a selection intelligently, but 
that the primary has imposed upon the voter the impossible task 
of making an intelligent selection of, say, a dozen men, from 
some four times that number of candidates. The New York 


30 


University op Kentucky 


primary election is cited as the absurd extremes to which the 
primary may lead. Here the voter was given a ballot fourteen 
feet long, containing something over eight hundred names from 
which he was to select more than one hundred candidates. Many 
city elections are cited as having similar absurdities. 

The question will no doubt be argued on the merits of the 
past performance of the two systems. There seems to be noth¬ 
ing in the question, however, to prevent either side from arguing 
the question from an idealistic standpoint, admitting that in the 
hands of certain men and during their formative periods both 
systems have run amuck, but that the failure was not due to the 
system, but to the persons in whose hands it had fallen. 

Prom this point of view, you have the question boiled down 
to two fairly clean-cut issues: Is it better to select a representa¬ 
tive from a unit group, say the precinct, and to let him use his 
judgment in selecting the person or persons to carry the party’s 
banner, or to allow the voters to select the person or persons as 
their party nominee directly? 

No objection could be raised to injecting into the argument 
the short ballot principle of government, for either side, be¬ 
cause neither the direct nor the indirect primary systems re¬ 
quires that all public officers should be elected by the people. 
Pure democracy may require it but we are not arguing for or 
against pure democracy. 

It does not seem justifiable for us to go into details regarding 
the operations and processes of the convention system. It would 
require a great deal more space than we have to give it. Be¬ 
sides such information can be easily obtained from any good text 
book on American Government or Party Systems. Ogg and 
Pay’s Introduction to American Government has a very read¬ 
able account of the National Convention System. The debater 
should be thoroly familiar with all of the facts regarding the 
operations of the political parties in both direct and indirect 
systems. 

When these facts have been ascertained, the question, Re¬ 
solved, That the system of direct primary nominations is pre- 


Direct Primaries 


31 


ferable to that of nominations by caucus and convention system, 
will have a little clearer meaning. 

It seems to tlie authors that the following conclusions be¬ 
come apparent: 

1. Democratic government means rule by the people. 

2. In order for the people to rule they must have some 
means of expressing their wishes. 

3. Political parties are the means which all democratic 
governments use to express their will. 

4. Parties use two systems of selecting candidates, namely: 
(a) the direct primary system; (b) the indirect primary or con¬ 
vention system. 

The problem, therefore, before the debaters of this question 
is to determine whether the direct primary is a better means of 
expressing the will of a party than the indirect primary. Our 
interpretation of the question, therefore, seems to lead directly 
to the phrase, method of expressing party will, as regards candi¬ 
dates. That seems to us to be the key to the whole debate. 

Facts About the Direct Primary 

A word regarding the principles of the direct primary is 
necessary since it has been at times merged and mingled with 
the indirect system. 

1. The direct primary is based upon the principle that all 
elective officers shall be nominated by the direct vote of the 
members of the jDolitical party in which the candidate seeks the 
nomination. 

2. The direct primary is strictly a party matter. 

3. Each political party holds its own primary election. For 
convenience the direct primaries of all the major parties are held 
on the same day but it must be kept in mind that they are sepa¬ 
rate party affairs and have no connection. 

4. The state regulates the direct primary on the ground 
that it has become a matter of public concern since it is a matter 
of eliminating possible candidates in the regular election. 


32 


University of Kentucky 


5. The statement is often made that twenty-six states 
have adopted the direct primary system in selecting the dele¬ 
gates to the national convention. This is true, but the conclusion 
must not be drawn that the direct primary is in force in the 
majority (26) of states for nominating the President. As a mat¬ 
ter of fact, the 'presidential preferential system in effect in these 
twenty-six states is really a conglomerate or mixture of both 
the direct and indirect systems. For example, when the voter 
goes to the polls in one of those states he does not cast his vote for 
a candidate for president directly. He merely casts his vote 
for a man or a group of men who say they will vote for his par¬ 
ticular candidate. Let us say that Mr. John Doe is a Republican 
in the State of Ohio, favoring Major General Leonard Wood. 
When he goes to the polls he will not find General Wood’s name, 
but rather a man or group of men who say they will vote for 
General Wood on the first three ballots. After the first three 
ballots according to law, they may use their own judgment. So 
here you have a peculiar mixture of the two systems, the direct 
and the indirect. Thus you see we have the primary used to 
select delegates to a convention (indirect system). 

6. Party platforms may be advisable but they are not ab¬ 
solutely necessary. Several candidates in the early days of our 
government ran on past records rather than promises of future 
performance. (The argument that conventions are necessary for 
making platforms may be thus combatted). 

Arguments for Direct Primary 

1. The convention system does not attract as delegates 
men who represent the best type of citizenship. For example, 
Mr. C. E. Myers, in describing the nominating system of a Cook 
County convention, held in Chicago in 1896, describes the dele¬ 
gates as follows: 

“Of the delegates, those who had been on trial for murder 
numbered 17; sentenced to the penitentiary for murder or man¬ 
slaughter and served sentence, 7; served terms in the penitentiary 
for burglary, 36; served terms in the penitentiary for picking 
pockets, 2; served terms in the penitentiary for arson, 1; ex- 
r 

i- 


Direct Primaries 


33 


Bridewell and jailbirds, identified by detectives, 84; keepers of 
gambling houses, 7; keepers of houses of ill-fame, 2; convicted 
of mayhem, 3; ex-prize fighters, 11; poolroom proprietors, 2; 
saloon keepers, 265; lawyers, 14; physicians, 3; grain dealers, 2; 
political employees, 148; hatter, 1; stationer, 1; contractors, 4; 
grocer, 1; sign painter 1; plumbers, 4; butcher, 1; druggist, 1; 
furniture supplies, 1; commission merchants, 2; ex-policemen, 
15; dentist, 1; speculators, 2; justices of the peace, 3; ex-constable, 
1; farmers, 6; undertakers, 3; no occupation, 71; total delegates, 
723 .” 

Another example is related by Ostrogorski (Democracy in 
the Party System), showing liow Tammany Hall seized the 
power of the people through the convention system and looted 
the city out of more than $160,000,000.00. The respectable citi¬ 
zens being too engrossed by their own affairs, not realizing what 
was going on, seemed helpless to prevent this strong organiza¬ 
tion from capturing the power. 

“The most famous of those rings was that formed by a cer¬ 
tain Tweed. This man whose name under ordinary circum¬ 
stances would not have gotten beyond reports of the police court, 
a chair maker by trade, gave up his business and launched into 
speculation and caucus politics. By a series of skillful movements, 
Tweed and his associates made their way into the general com¬ 
mittee of the Democratic party and soon became masters of it, and 
from that moment the city of New York was at their feet. They 
got friends to buy plots of land which the city afterwards required 
for public purposes at extravagant prices; sent in fictitious claims 
which the city paid without asking questions. The building and 
furnishing the law court offers a striking example. According 
to the estimate, it whs to cost $250,000.00, but it swallowed up 
from eight to thirteen million dollars without being finished. Each 
chair cost $407.00 and the rest in proportion.” 

2. A considerable period of time usually elapses between 
the choosing of delegates to a convention and the time the con¬ 
vention meets. This offers abundant opportunity for bribery 
and other corrupt influences. 

3. Delegates are sometimes elected who have no intention 
of attending the convention for which they have been chosen. 
They transfer their credentials for a valuable consideration to 
unscrupulous politicians who serve as their substitutes or proxies. 


D. P.—2 


34 


University of Kentucky 


4. The faction defeated at the primary convention often 
sends a contesting delegation to the convention. Such contests 
are always referred to a committee on credentials appointed by 
the temporary chairman of the convention. If the chairman 
is in league with the defeated faction, he appoints to the com¬ 
mittee on credentials men favorable to the admission of the de¬ 
feated contestants. In this way the will of the majority, as re¬ 
flected in the primary, is often overridden. Sometimes the 
dispute is compromised by admitting both factions, allowing each 
only half vote. Even in that case the will of the people has 
been half defeated. 

5. The convention proceedings are often marred by violent 
disorder and fraudulent manipulations of votes and unfair rul¬ 
ings of the chairman. Convention chairmen rarely ever see a 
member of the opposing faction who arises to speak; though a 
hundred may yell “No/’ the chairman can only hear “Aye,” 
and the “Ayes” have it. Written resolutions may be started to 
the chairman’s desk, but they are either lost on the way, or the 
chairman hasn’t time to read them. 

6. The convention system, because of its complexity, only 
partially gives expression to the will of the individual voter. 

7. The nominating system has become in the majority of 
cases simply a cut and dried affair to ratify the agreement 
reached beforehand by the party leaders. This brings out per¬ 
haps the most conspicuous evil connected with the convention 
system; namely, boss or machine control of conventions. 

“In theory,” says Governor Hughes, “party candidates are 
selected by those who have been chosen by the party voters to 
represent them in convention. In practice, the delegates to nomi¬ 
nating conventions are generally mere pieces on the political 
chess board and most of them might as well be inanimate, so 
far as effective participation in the choice of candidates is con¬ 
cerned. Party candidates are in effect generally appointed by 
those who have not been invested with any such appointing 
power.” 


Direct Primaries 


35 


Four important consequences of boss or machine control 
were pointed out by Governor Hughes of New York. 

“It has a disastrous result upon party leadership. The power 
of nominating candidates, which has come to rest largely upon 
party leaders, is so important that it offers a constant tempta¬ 
tion to the manipulation of party machinery for its preservation 
in the hands of individuals. It tends to discourage party voters 
from participating in the affairs of the party. The average voter 
is an infrequent attendant at party caucuses and primaries. The 
present indirect system, of nominating candidates has convinced 
the average citizen of the futility of any contest in the primaries, 
and only a small percentage of the enrolled voters go through the 
motions of voting for delegates already selected for them by 
the leaders. The primary vote for delegates to conventions is 
largely cast by those who make more or less of a profession of 
politics. Candidates too often regard themselves as primarily 
accountable not to their constituents, nor even in the broad sense 
to their party, but to those individual leaders to whom they realize 
they owe their offices, and upon the continuance of whose favor 
they feel that their political future depends. To the extent that 
party machinery can be dominated by the few, the opportunity 
for special interests which desire to control the administration 
of the government, to shape the laws, to prevent the passage of 
law T s, or to break the laws with impunity, is increased. These 
interests are ever at w r ork, stealthily and persistently endeavoring 
to pervert the government to the service of their own ends. All 
that is worst in our public life finds its readiest means of access 
to power through the control of the nominating machinery of 
parties.” 

8. Active political work on the part of the rank and file of 
the party is encouraged because the direct primary makes it 
easier for the ordinary voter to exert an influence on the choice 
of the committeemen and candidates. 

9. It brings out a larger vote to the primaries. From 
twenty-five to seventy-five per cent of the party voters quite reg¬ 
ularly come out to the direct primary, and when an especially 
sharp contest is on from fifty-five to eighty-five per cent come 

out. 

10. The direct primary is simpler than the convention sys¬ 
tem. Under the latter there is a primary followed by the various 


36 


University of Kentucky 


conventions. Under the direct system, one day’s primary elec¬ 
tion usually settles everything, and the whole cumbrous and 
expensive machinery of the delegate convention is abolished. 

11. Where the party committeemen are chosen directly 
by the voters, the system “promotes true party leadership by 
making it less susceptible to misuse and more in accord with 
general party sentiment.” 

12. It is claimed that the direct primary “secures the 
nomination of better men by making their nomination depend 
upon the presentation of their claims to the voters, instead of 
upon secret manipulations.” A more conservative) statement 
would be that the direct primary is an institution for the bring¬ 
ing out a conspicuously fit person or for attacking a conspicu¬ 
ously unfit one or one whose alliances are conspicuously unfit. 

13. The direct primary, it is claimed, takes away from the 
politicians much of their former control over nominations and 
places that control more nearly in the hands of the people. The 
result is to make “the elective officer more independent of those 
who would control his action for their own selfish advantage and 
enables him to appeal more directly to the constituency upon the 
basis of faithful service.” Thus, it proves “a strong barrier 
against the efforts of those who seek to pervert administration to 
the service of privilege or to secure immunity for lawbreaking . 9 7 

14. Bribery and corruption are rendered, if not more dif¬ 
ficult, at least less potent than formerly in determining nomi¬ 
nations. 

15. The simplification of our large and confusing ballot is 
a result that may ultimately be looked for. While the direct 
primary dees not reduce the number of elective offices, it will 
have a constantly increasing influence to that end, because it 
will serve to keep before the voter the magnitude of the political 
burden unnecessarily loaded upon his shoulders. 

16. Striking instances show that the lack of money is 
not a handicap, if a candidate goes to the people with issues 
in which they are interested. In Washington, Senator Jones, 
a comparatively poor man, won against a millionaire rival who 


Direct Primaries 


37 


spent money freely. Joseph L. Bristow won the nomination in 
Kansas against Chester I. Long. Long spent seven times as 
much as Bristow. Senator Johnson, of North Dakota, a farmer 
of moderate means, spent almost nothing against three com¬ 
petitors who spent altogether over $200,000. Governor Warner, 
of Michigan, made the statement that in a contest for governor, 
just before the change to the new system, ‘More money was ex¬ 
pended than will be used in the next ten years under the direct 
voting system.’ One well acquainted with conditions in New 
Hampshire says less money has been spent for nominations 
under the primary than under the old system.” Professor G. G. 
Groat, University of Vermont, in “Introduction to Political 
Parties and Practical Politics,” by O. P. Ray. 

17. “Facts furnished from authorities in twenty-two states 
show that the state officers come mostly from the smaller towns 
and rural districts. Of the twenty-one governors chosen by 
direct primaries, sixteen came from towns or cities of less than 
20,000 inhabitants. 

“In Illinois, 5 out of 6 state officers came from towns of 
less than 16,000. 

“In Iowa, 6 out of 7 state officers came from towns of less 
than 2,500. 

“In Kansas, 7 out of 8 state officers came from towns of 
less than 5,000. 

“In Missouri, 5 out of 7 state officers came from towns of 
less than 12,000. 

“In Nebraska, 7 out of 8 state officers came from towns of 
less than 8,000. 

“In Oregon, 2 out of 6 state officers came from towns of 
less than 2,000. 

“In Washington, 5 out of 6 state officers came from towns 
of less than 10,000. 

“In Wisconsin, 5 out of 6 state officers came from towns 
of less than 20,000.” 





The Convention System 







Direct Primaries 41 

FACTS ABOUT CONVENTION SYSTEMS 

1. The convention system of nomination is one in which 
the voter votes for a representative of his party. These rep¬ 
resentatives, in theory at least, select the party nominee. 

2. Sometimes the voters of a precinct select a representa¬ 
tive, then these precinct representatives meet and select county 
representatives and the county representatives meet in a con¬ 
gressional district and select representatives to the national con¬ 
vention. 

3. The instruction of delegates is a violation of the theory 
of the convention system. This seems to be an attempt to get the 
same results as the direct primary acting through the convention 
system. 

4. Certain features of the convention system have become 
legalized by states. There seems to be nothing to prevent the 
legalization of the entire system of indirect primaries. 

5. The convention system is used in almost every national 
organization where people are involved. The Masonic Order, 
and every other secret order in the United States, use the con¬ 
vention system. Church organizations, labor unions, industrial 
organizations, manufacturing associations, and chambers of com¬ 
merce use the convention system. Educational associations, and 
in fact every social organization of national scope, uses the con¬ 
vention system. Only in political parties has the primary ever 
been used. 

6. The convention system could be paid for by the govern¬ 
ment just as the direct primary is now paid for by the state 
governments. 

Arguments for the Convention System 

In theory, it must be granted that the convention system is 
well nigh perfect, for it admits of the purest application of the 
principle of representative or delegated authority. Theoretically, 
the voice of each voter can be transmitted from delegate to dele¬ 
gate until finally it finds perfect expression in the legislature, 


42 


University of Kentucky 


the executive, or the judiciary. The nearest approach to such 
ideal conditions was reached by the convention system during its 
early days. When so conducted as to command the confidence 
and respect of the voters, it was the foundation of party suc¬ 
cess. It furnished an excellent opportunity for the perfection 
of party organization. It furnished an opportunity for esitmat- 
ing a party’s strength, since the conventions were composed of 
men from every locality and from every part of the state, who 
were familiar with party conditions in their home communities. 
It afforded an opportunity for judging of a candidate’s popu¬ 
larity, for arousing party enthusiasm, for conciliating factions 2 
for formulating the party platform. Conventions were, in theory, 
deliberative bodies, thoroughly representative of every locality, 
faction, class, and interest comprised in the party. For these 
reasons its defenders still regard the convention system as a 
most valuable instrument in the hands of the party. 

Against the direct primary system a large number of ob¬ 
jections have been raised. Irrespective, however, of the char¬ 
acter of the objectors, the objections themselves deserve consid¬ 
eration. They may be briefly enumerated as follows: 

(1) The character and efficiency of public officials have not 
been improved under the direct primary system. 

(2) Corruption in politics has not been diminished. On 
the other hand, it is claimed that the new system ‘ ‘ tends to pro¬ 
mote, rather than to check, electoral corruption. A primary 
election is merely another election, and as elections are now con¬ 
ducted we have enough of them. A primary is merely another 
opportunity for the floater and the grafter. A large and corrupt 
use of money is encouraged.” 

The Illinois direct primary held in April, 1916, at which 
only the delegates to the national convention and the county and 
ward committeemen were chosen, is stated to have cost the tax¬ 
payers of the state approximately $700,000. 

(3) It makes it virtually impossible for any one excepting 
moneyed men or demagogues to be elected to office because of 


Direct Primaries 


43 


the great expense involved in canvassing for two elections, the 
primary and the regular election which follows. 

In the municipal, direct primary in Chicago in 1911, Mr. 
Mariam, one of the candidates for the Republican nomination, 
made a demand for the publication of campaign contributions 
and expenditures after audit by an expert accountant. Sworn 
statements were made by all except two candidates, and they 
showed expenditures ranging all the way from $10.00 to $30,000. 
Another case in point is that of Mr. Stephenson, who expended 
$107,000 in a recent campaign for the direct primary Republican 
nomination for United States Senator in Wisconsin. Later this 
campaign was made the subject of an exhaustive congressional 
investigation. A majority of the committee reported that evi¬ 
dence was lacking which would prove that even this enormous 
sum was corruptly expended. In Pennsylvania, a candidate for 
representative in Congress spent over $47,000 in a direct primary 
campaign. The expenditures by Mr. Vance McCormick, Demo¬ 
cratic candidate for governor in Pennslyvania in 1914, in con¬ 
nection with the direct primary, were over $33,200, and in the 
same primary, Senator Penrose expended over $14,600 for re¬ 
nomination. These items do not include other expenditures by 
political committees in behalf of these candidates. 

(4) Since the expenses connected with the conduct of the 
direct primary election are borne by the public, the system in¬ 
volves a large increase in taxation. 

(5) The petition method of placing names on the primary 
ballot has created a class of mercenaries hired for the purpose 
of soliciting signatures to such petitions, 

(6) The direct primary tends to weaken and disorganize 
the party, since it renders more difficult the harmonizing of 
differences and jealousies and misunderstandings. It affords no 
security for a geographical distribution of the candidates which 
is calculated to strengthen the party throughout the state. As 
tried in some states, it facilitates Democrats nominating Repub¬ 
lican candidates and Republicans assisting in the nomination of 
Democratic candidates. 


44 


University op Kentucky 


(7) No satisfactory method has been provided for the 
making of a party platform. In those states where the platform 
is drafted by the party nominees it is asserted to be a mere 
“catch vote” affair and not a true embodiment of the party’s 
principles. 

(8) The new system has not dethroned the political boss 
or put the machine “out of business.” It does not remove any 
of the conditions which have produced the system of machines 
and bosses, but intensifies their pressure by making politics still 
more confused, irresponsible, and costly. It parallels the long 
series of regular elections with a corresponding series of primary 
elections in every regular party organization. The more elections 
there are, the larger becomes the class of professional politicians 
to be supported by the community. 

(9) The direct primary tends to a multiplicity of candi¬ 
dates, with a resulting confusion of the voters. The “ring” in¬ 
fluence can easily cause a number of respectable candidates to be 
brought out, and thus divide the vote of the best citizens, while 
the ring or machine candidate may easily obtain a larger number 
of votes than any of his opponents. 

(10) Direct primary elections are a blow at representative 
government and tend toward pure democracy. 

(11) State-wide direct primaries favor populous centers 
as against rural communities. Rural candidates are at a dis¬ 
advantage. Tt is more difficult for them to get in touch with 
their constituents. Candidates from the cities have the advan¬ 
tage of increased publicity through the city newspapers. 

(12) The convention system is used by all social and busi¬ 
ness organizations. This is without doubt one of the strongest 
possible arguments for the validity of the convention system. 
The fact that every church organization, every fraternal organ¬ 
ization, labor organization or union, Sunday school organiza¬ 
tion, educational organization, commercial association, or pro¬ 
fessional organization use the convention system is strong proof 
that as a system the principle is sound. The fact is that there 
is not a single organization of national scope in the whole world 


Direct Primaries 


45 


that does not work on the representative principle, which is the 
convention system principle. 

(13) Organized society since the dawn of history has not 
found a better principle. 

(14) Business organization works on exactly the same 
principle. The thousands of stockholders in a million or billion 
dollar corporation vote for representatives (the directors) who 
in most cases select the officers, such as the president, vice-presi¬ 
dent, secretaries and managers to carry on the affairs of the 
organization. 

(15) The public school system of our nation uses the in¬ 
direct system. The organization and management of this vast 
system, that is nation-wide in its scope, is considered one of the 
best known to our body politic. Of all public money expended 
it is estimated that dollar for dollar there is less graft in school 
funds than in any other money that is raised by public taxation. 
The one exception is the ease of election, of county and state 
superintendents by popular vote. This exception proves the 
rule. It is an undenied fact that superintendents elected by pop¬ 
ular vote are more inefficient than those selected by boards of 
education. This is evidenced by two pertinent facts: First, city 
superintendents are, as a rule, more efficient than popularly 
elected county superintendents. Second, the most forward states 
in education have the indirect systems. The most backward 
states have the direct system. 

(16) The convention, or indirect system, is in keeping with 
the ideas of the framers of the United States Constitution. They 
provided for the election of the President and Senators by in¬ 
direct vote. The Constitution is now changed so that Senators 
are elected by popular vote, but it would be difficult, if not im¬ 
possible, to prove that the calibre of the men, or the general tone 
of the Senate, has been improved by the amendment. In fact 
there is good evidence to show that the contrary is true, namely, 
that the Senate has fewer great men and, in fact, that the gen¬ 
eral standard for the Senate has suffered. 


46 


University of Kentucky 


We like to believe, and it seems a fact, that our forefathers 
laid the foundation for the greatest nation in the world. It seems 
but natural to believe that our nation has become great since it 
was founded upon sound principles. The chiefest of those prin¬ 
ciples was representative (indirect system) of government. In 
fact it was in this principle that it differed very materially from 
all other nations. It is this principle that almost all other demo¬ 
cratic nations of the world have copied. The direct system seems 
to tear down this principle. If it does, then the advocates of the 
direct principle must prove that they have found a better prin¬ 
ciple than the one on which our government was founded. It is 
difficult to do in the face of the facts. (Facts may be collected 
by debaters to show that direct principle has not proved better.) 

Remedies for the Convention System 

To remedy the evils or defects of the convention system, a 
variety of suggestions have been made and a number of experi¬ 
ments have been tried. They fall into two main classes—changes 
that would retain the convention system, but would so reform it 
as to do away with its most glaring evils; and changes that 
aim to bring about the abolition of the convention system, in 
whole or in part, and place the right to make nominations di¬ 
rectly in the hands of the people. 

Some of the evils of the convention system have been dimin¬ 
ished or eliminated by the adoption of a few sinrple and intelligi¬ 
ble party rules, providing for some form of registration or en¬ 
rollment of the party voters; for giving sufficient notice of the 
time and place of caucuses or primaries for the choice of dele¬ 
gates ; for the orderly procedure of primaries and conventions; 
for the fair and impartial settlement of disputes arising within 
the party; for the prohibition of the use of proxies; and provid¬ 
ing that all appointive federal, state, county, and municipal 
office holders shall be ineligible to serve as delegates in any con¬ 
vention. For such party rules to effect any real reform, it is 
necessary to have honest and energetic men in control of the 
committees, charged with the enforcement of those rules. In 


Direct Primaries 


47 


many places where the great mass of voters are ignorant or where 
the machine has secured a grip on the party organization, it has 
been impossible to obtain such rules, or else they have proved 
wholly ineffective. 

Among other suggestions coming from those who seek to re¬ 
form rather than to abandon the delegate convention are the 
following: It has been proposed that after the delegates from 
the lowest political units have been elected in fair, well guarded 
primaries, each town, city, or county delegation to the convention 
shall elect a chairman or foreman. This chairman, acting for 
his delegation, shall hand into the convention all the nominations 
desired by a plurality of his delegation, and the nominations 
thus filed by the different delegations shall be posted by the 
convention on a large bulletin board, and then proceed to vote 
on such names, and no others, by secret ballot, under the super¬ 
vision of officials named by public election commissioners. An¬ 
other suggestion has been made, to the effect that after securing 
properly guarded primaries, all nominations in conventions 
should be by printed ballots, each ballot bearing the name of the 
delegate voting it, and to be given official record. This would 
make the delegate, it is claimed, directly responsible to his con¬ 
stituents and to the public. Neither of these suggestions, how¬ 
ever, has yet secured any considerable body of supporters. 

A third proposal advocates the referendum in nominations 
as a device that will serve as a very effective check on arbitrary 
and irresponsible action by the party organization. Under this 
system, no nomination by a party convention will be accepted as 
the nomination of the party if within a certain time a petition 
signed by a certain percentage of the enrolled voters of the party 
is filed, asking that the nomination be referred to the party 
voters. Should the convention have proposed a man for office in 
opposition to the wish of a majority of the party members, the 
referendum will give them an opportunity to reject the nomina¬ 
tion by direct vote and to make a substitution. The occasion for 
the actual use of the referendum, it is argued, would rarely 
arise, yet the possibility of its exercise would prove most bene- 


48 


University of Kentucky 


ficial. The serious threat of the referendum would ordinarily he 
sufficient to cause the party leaders either to accept a compromise 
or to make the nomination that seemed to be demanded by a ma¬ 
jority of the party. Their practical common sense would not 
permit them to risk the loss of prestige that an adverse vote 
would cost. 


OPINIONS OF KENTUCKIANS 

In order that the youth of the State might 
have an opportunity to know what the citizens 
of Kentucky think of the direct primary, a num¬ 
ber of leading citizens of the State, both men and 
women, were asked to express their opinion both 
for and against the direct primary. Not a large 
number of persons responded, but the communi¬ 
cations herein presented are worth incorporating 
in this volume. 

Government is too far removed from the peo¬ 
ple. Most of our young people grow up with 
the idea that government is some force or power 
entirely outside their experience, and it will 
make for good citizenship if the youth of the 
land can be brought into closer contact with 
their government. These opinions of Ken¬ 
tuckians for Kentucky boys and girls we hope 
will help to contribute to this idea of breaking 
down the wall. 










Direct Primaries 


51 


From a Government Official 

Honorable Robert H. Lucas, Collector of Internal Revenue, 
Louisville, Kentucky, says: 

As a factor for good government, the convention system for 
making nominations is preferable to the direct system, for the 
reason that a higher type of candidate is secured through the 
former method. Party managers find it extremely difficult to 
persuade capable business men, or men especially fitted for 
office, to enter a primary fight, whereas,' they will more readily 
agree to accept a convention nomination—this for the reason 
that there is no preliminary expense or organization work nec¬ 
essary, and for the further reason that each man knows who 
will be on the ticket with him and what principles the candidates 
on his ticket will stand for. The primary system breeds uncer¬ 
tainty and confusion and results in the lowering of the standard 
of candidates. 

By their refusal to vote in primaries, the majorities of each 
of the two dominant parties have demonstrated that they do not 
care to take a hand in party nominations. Their action would 
be taken to mean only that they expect party leaders to provide 
a ticket of candidates which will best represent their party. 

The party organization, whether in primary or convention, 
usually and with very few exceptions, nominates those whom 
the leaders decide. The primary only prolongs the process, re¬ 
quiring the added burden of the expenses of campaigning and 
organizing and, can result only in the nomination of such men 
as are willing to get into a “knock down and drag out” party 
fight. This, of course, does not keep all good men out, but re¬ 
gardless of what may be said of men who refuse to enter pri¬ 
maries, many of the best men who were ever elected to office 
would have never been heard from if it had been necessary for 
them to enter a primary fight to secure the nomination of their 
party. 


52 


University of Kentucky 


From a Kentucky Tobacco Grower 

Honorable T. P. Middleton, tobacconist of Eminence, Ken¬ 
tucky, writes: 

The theory of the direct primary is ideal, but sometimes it 
seems to me that it actually prevents what it was really intended 
to accomplish, the election of the best candidates by the people. 
The best candidate is one who can win. I am for my party be¬ 
cause I think it can give the best administration in Kentucky, 
but I do not censure members of other parties for having the 
same opinion, and all of us select our candidates with the same 
idea in view—to win. I am only familiar with the problems that 
have come up in the Democratic party, so I must confine myself 
to the things that I think are for the good of that party. In the 
first place, we have too many elections, causing the people to 
lose interest in political affairs. Primaries are a big expense to 
the State, and also to the prospective candidates. I am sure 
that a great many of our best citizens do not run for office on 
account of the trouble and expense of making a state-wide cam¬ 
paign. 

To win, a party should be united, and in all of the primaries 
I have taken part in, more or less bitterness has developed that 
has made the situation hard to handle in the regular election. 
To win, a well balanced ticket should be placed in the field with 
as many districts represented by candidates as possible. Our 
capitol being in the Seventh District, the people here take more 
interest in politics than those in other districts, and we always 
furnish more primary candidates than any other one .district. 
These Seventh District candidates are in touch with the political 
situations over the State,, they know the best workers in every 
precinct, and are familiar with the workings of political ma¬ 
chinery, so in every primary election that I can remember 
we have nominated a ticket top heavy with candidates from 
the Seventh District. In the recent primary (1923) we nomi¬ 
nated three candidates from the Seventh District, and four years 
ago, I think there were five on the ticket from this district. This 
is not calculated to arouse much enthusiasm in the districts that 
are not represented by candidates. 


Direct Primaries 


53 


I think that in a convention, a ticket can be selected that 
v ill lia\e a better chance to win than can be nominated in a 
primary. In a convention, candidates can be selected not only 
with a view to their especial qualifications for office, but also 
with an eye to their geographical location, so the whole State 
will be interested in the ticket. The contests in a convention 
are usually short and sharp and whatever feeling is developed 
dies out because there are no speakers stumping the State for 
months, adding fuel to the flames, and arousing bitterness that 
is hard to sweeten when the regular election rolls around. 

I freely admit that there are objectionable features to con¬ 
ventions. There are slates, tricks, trades, and manipulations 
of every description, but people will have to learn that politics 
is a rough game because all kinds of people play it, and the best 
definition of politics I ever heard is that it means to “ smear 
things so that everybody gets something hut our side gets the 
best. ’ ’ 


From a School Superintendent 

Mr. T. C. Cherry, Superintendent of City Schools, Bowling 
Green, Kentucky, writes: 

Let the people through a primary name their party leaders. 
It is in keeping with the spirit of democracy and is a safeguard 
to political liberty. True, sometimes candidates may be nomi¬ 
nated by a minority, but on questions of great importance and in 
times of political stress the people will vote. It would be un¬ 
wise to relieve them from this duty and responsibility in pri¬ 
maries. 

From a Member of the Democratic State Executive 

Committee 

Honorable Bailey P. Wootton, member of the Democratic 
State Executive Committee, Hazard, Kentucky, says: 

Viewed not only from the standpoint of party expediency— 
and we must have party organizations if republican form of 
government is to be perpetuated—but from that of the State’s 


54 


University of Kentucky 


best interest as well—our present statute regulating primary 
elections approaches nearest the ideal, because it lodges with the 
governing authority of each party the power to call either a 
primary or a convention for the purpose of making nominations. 
Under certain circumstances and conditions a primary may best 
serve the interest of party and state, while under others a con¬ 
vention would answer the same purpose. 

But the direct primary law, properly regulated by statutes, 
safeguarding the honest conduct of elections, should never be 
repealed. It embodies the elements of the secret ballot, of ma¬ 
jority rule, and brings us nearer to the fundamental principle 
of government of, by and for the people. It may sometimes bring 
about a grievance and an occasional miscarriage of justice, but 
in the end, one year after another, it will be found the only 
safe method. 


From a High School Principal 

S. H. McGuire, Principal, Morgan County High School, 
West Liberty, Kentucky, says: 

There are two principles of government contending for 
supremacy in the United States. The one is government by the 
few; the other, government by the people. The convention or 
caucus expresses the will of the leaders, the primary intends to 
express the will of the people. The caucus, as a method of se¬ 
lecting a presidential nominee, has been condemned and 
abandoned. The convention has lost favor. The people are more 
capable of self-government now than in the early period of our 
history. They deserve a trial of the primary method with a 
short ballot, and its faults amended so that the will of the ma¬ 
jority may be determined. I believe the people should select, 
rather than approve the selection made by few. 

Comments from Clubwomen in Kentucky 

Mrs. 0. J. Jennings, Chairman, First District, Kentucky 
League of Women Voters, writes: 

I am very much in favor of primaries. Being young in 
politics, I have only attended one convention and that 


was 


Direct Primaries 


55 


enough. A few politicians ran away with it, and the county 
convention was also cut and dried. A primary more nearly ex¬ 
presses the wishes of the people and is not so easy for the few 
to manipulate. At least everyone can have a vote and very 
nearly every one does. 

Mrs. J. C. Layne, Jr., 17 Villa Place, Fort Thomas, Ken¬ 
tucky, wife of a Kentucky stockman, writes: 

The direct primary is just another step in our check and 
balance system of government, and began as an experiment 
about twenty years ago. It is a step forward, and no one claims 
perfection for it, but in the hands of an intelligent and inter¬ 
ested electorate, we can hope for honest government. 

Mrs. Minnie Patton Oldham, member of the Democratic 
Committee for Montgomery County, Kentucky, says: 

As to the comparative merits of the direct primary and con¬ 
vention system, in my opinion both have defects which might 
well be remedied, but the direct primary is more in accord with 
American ideals of government, since it affords an equal op¬ 
portunity to every voter to have a say in the elections. 

The direct primary gives the unitiated woman voter a voice 
in the selection of candidates, and the chance for political bosses 
to control is less than in the convention or caucus system. The 
system or principle of the direct primary should not be blamed 
bcause all the people do not make use of it; the same objection 
may as reasonably be made against the universal suffrage system. 

Mrs. Clara Anita Bradley, Chairman of the Ninth District 
Republican Women, Morehead, Kentucky, says: 

Statistics prove that only about two per cent of the people 
think, the balance follow. I take this as a basic principle upon 
which the convention or caucus system is preferable. If the 
leaders of a party, who are compelled to think and act upon the 
selection of the best material available cannot find it, then I do 
not think that the masses can by direct primary obtain it either. 
The primary system offers a wholesale opportunity for the po¬ 
litical degenerate and more often causes factions to arise within 
party ranks, which after nomination by primary are not as easily 


56 


University of Kentucky 


remedied (when unity is most needed) as by method of conven¬ 
tion. It is an unnecessary expenditure of both moral force and 
financial means in the affairs of the State. 

Miss Carrie Cosby Fulton, Bardstown, Kentucky, says: 

All of our Commonwealth’s political troubles may he traced 
directly or indirectly to the non-participation of a decisive ma¬ 
jority of those who would be intelligent, conscientious voters— 
if they voted at all, and Kentucky’s chief problem is to secure 
for her elections the participation of this class of voters. The 
personal responsibility appeal of the primary has, of necessity, a 
more certain and potent tendency in this direction than the 
delegated responsibility of the convention. 

Where state elections are concerned, the primary is the only 
one in which what are called issues really figure. Outside the 
primary it is chiefly a question of parties and candidates, and 
election upon these grounds is not only a mistake, but an evil, 
when such grounds relegate to the background a consideration 
of public welfare problems. If these have been adequately 
dealt with in a primary, devoid of partisan entanglements, val¬ 
uable information has been disseminated among the voters, even 
though mistakes are made in nominations; for the primary 
brings a discussion of these issues to the notice of every voter 
and enables him to pronounce upon the question without vio¬ 
lation of party loyalty. 

Concerning our official representatives, we use the word 
“leader” too much. We need to revive the old phrase “servant 
of the people” and its underlying idea. Your true leader in a 
democracy is the “demos” itself. And an intelligent, moral 
citizenship should insist that it be represented, or re-presented, 
not “led” by its officials. Here the primary is invaluable. It 
brings a suggested man into direct contact with those he pro¬ 
poses to represent; he acquaints them with his attitude toward, 
his views upon, all matters of public weal; they can measure his 
ability and his probity by his speeches and his supporters; and 
if selected, he will be the choice, not of the best minds of the 
people, but of the people’s best mind. 


Direct Primaries 


57 


From a Woman Member of the Democratic State Central 

Committee 

Miss Eleanor Duncan Wood of the Democratic State Cen¬ 
tral Committee, Maysville, Kentucky, says: 

The interests of a democracy are best served by freedom of 
choice for the citizen. And certainly there is more of this free¬ 
dom in a voting booth with a secret ballot, than in a convention, 
dominated as it almost invariably is, by the most vocal and ag¬ 
gressive elements of a party. Against every objection we must 
set the thing that counts, and that thing which we strive for and 
get in a primary, is freedom to vote as we please. 

Miss Ada Mae Cromwell, State Chairman of Education, 
Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs, Jett, Kentucky, says: 

Which shall it be? By all means the primary—for with all 
its faults it enfolds the idea of a government by all the people. 
It gives to the most timid an opportunity to express an opinion, 
and the opinion of the most timid is oftimes a most valuable 
one. It places the responsibility of the selection of office holders 
directly upon the individual and leaves no one to blame if things 
go wrong save self. When we begin to quibble over the cost we 
become ridiculous—cost of what, pray? Let us never confuse 
the cost of the primary with waste, with useless expenditure or 
extravagance with public funds, let us rather speak of husband¬ 
ing the public funds for the welfare of the commonwealth to the 
end that we may, by using the primary system, select for pub¬ 
lic office men and women in whom the people have confidence. 
Let us not allow a few self-appointed leaders to convene an 
assembly and howl what purports to be the will of the people 
to the exclusion of the voice lifted in protest. It is hard to get 
the vote out to a primary; yes, so is it hard to get all the people 
out to church—shall we therefore declare the church a useless 
expense and proceed to abolish it? We think not. The primary 
system is not all it should be, neither is our system of roads— 
but we are working on it because we have a good start, so let us 
fall to and work on our primary and perfect it. The voice of 
the people—is there a more American phrase possible ? and does 


58 University of Kentucky 

not the primary provide for the speaking of that voice as nothing 
else can or will ? Let us have the primary. 

Mrs. Julia D. Henning, first vice-president, Kentucky 
League of Women Voters, Louisville, Kentucky, says: 

Believing that nomination is the “citadel of power” in a 
democratic government, I would advocate the surest approach 
to that fortress, and such a possibility for the individual I believe 
to be via the direct primary. There are certain defects, however, 
in my opinion, attendant on the present primary system of elec¬ 
tion in our State. First, I think the amendment making it pos¬ 
sible for either party to select either method, that is, a primary 
election or a convention, tends to invite the party boss to con¬ 
test with the more unselfish element in both parties and I think 
it also produces confusion among sincere party followers who 
could fear that they might be sacrificing party success for in¬ 
dividual opinion; therefore, I believe that there should be a uni¬ 
form method for selection of candidates. As I understand it at 
present, we have a primary operating under law and side by 
side a convention totally unrestricted by statute. Also, I would 
like very much to see certain changes made in the primary law 
as it now stands. First, as to the season of the year: The law 
calls for the primary to be held during the first week of August, 
a torrid season which finds many absentees from the State on 
account of the climate, and the stay-at-homes incapacitated for 
any strenuous endeavor save their immediate business. Secondly, 
I would most decidedly change the ruling making eligibility to 
vote in the primary dependent on a straight party ticket vote 
previously. There should be some regulation, of course. Other¬ 
wise, members of the opposing party might seriously tamper 
with nominations, but the regulation should be reasonable—a 
vote for the majority of the ticket for instance—allowing for 
that independent state of mind and increasing intelligent interest 
in government, sure to come with progressive civilization. 

Mrs. Charles E. Firth, 402 Garrard Street, Covington, Ken¬ 
tucky, says: 


Direct Primaries 


59 


The one great objection to the primary is the expense to 
the State as well as to the individual candidate that it involves. 
On the other hand, there is the advantage of each individual 
voter having the opportunity to register his or her choice of can¬ 
didate, which makes it more representative and is more demo¬ 
cratic in method. The convention system leaves too much power 
in hands of the party committees, and is almost equivalent to 
having our candidates chosen by the state committee which may 
be dominated by one man. I hope that a better system than 
either one may some day be evolved by which we may induce the 
very best of our citizens to become candidates for public office. 
I am sorry that my inexperience in politics precludes my giving 
you something worthy and interesting on this important and 
timely subject, instead of merely pointing out the one glaring 
fault in each system which is apparent to all the world. 






Selected Article on Direct 
Primaries 























' 








• 











~ 





• 

. N 




* 



♦ 

• 









SELECTED ARTICLES 

The following list of selected articles for and 
against the direct primary system are offered as 
merely a starting point for the debater. From 
the bibliography appended, a wealth of material 
for both sides may be found. 





















ARTICLES FAVORING THE 
AFFIRMATIVE 



D. P—3 







Direct Primaries 


67 


INDIANA BUREAU OF LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION. 
STATEMENTS ON DIRECT PRIMARIES 

Three hundred and ninety-seven members of the House of 
Representatives out of 934 including the 13 from Indiana are 
nominated by direct primaries. 

Seventy-four out of 96 United States Senators are nomi¬ 
nated by direct vote. 

Thirty-eight out of 48 governors are nominated by direct 

vote. 

In 40 out of 48 states the candidates for state offices other 
than governor are nominated by direct primaries. 

The states which have no state wide primaries are: Con¬ 
necticut, Delaware, Indiana, New Mexico, North Carolina, 
Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont. 

Maryland and Tennessee nominate candidates for governor 
and United States senator by direct vote. 

Governor Locke Craig of North Carolina recommended the 
passage of a direct primary act for his state in his 1915 message. 
The Utah legislature is considering the adoption of the direct 
primary. Vermont voted heavily in favor of the enactment of 
a state wide primary act and a preferential vote for president 
by the state legislature at the 1914 election. Governor Hatfield 
of West Virginia recommended a state wide compulsory primary 
act for his state this year. The Republican party has nominated 
state and congressional candidates by direct vote for many years. 

Twenty-one states provide in their primary acts for the di¬ 
rect election of party committeemen at the primary. They are: 
Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, 
Wisconsin, Wyoming and Texas. 

The average vote polled for governor in the 1914 primaries 
in nine typical states was 55 per cent of the final November vote 
while the average for United States senator in seven states was 
56 per cent of the final vote. 


68 


University of Kentucky 


The following table shows the percentages in each state for 
governor and United States senator : 

Primary vote and vote at final election, 1914, by percentages 


Governor 

Wisconsin . 65% 

Kansas. 37 % 

California . 56% 

New York.. 35% 

North Dakota . 87 % 

Minnesota . 79% 

Michigan . 51 % 

Massachusetts. 34 % 

Pennsylvania . 52% 

• __ 

Average. 55% 

United States Senator 

Wisconsin . 63% 

Washington . 34% 

Missouri .. 62% 

Kansas . 40 % 

California . 58% 

North Dakota . 86% 

Pennsylvania . 49 % 

Average. 56% 


The Indiana Legislature is interested in the enactment of a law to 
provide for the direct primary nomination of candidates for all or 
certain, state and county offices. Direct primaries have now been 
tested sufficiently to admit of a critical opinion of their effectiveness. 
For the purpose of formulating a symposium of opinion on this sub¬ 
ject, will you please answer the following questions? 

(1) On the whole, is your opinion of the direct primary favorable 
or unfavorable? 

(2) What are the vital defects of the direct primary, if any, and 
how may they be eliminated, if, in your opinion, they can be eliminated? 

(3) Has the direct primary been the means of making govern¬ 
ment more responsive to popular needs? 

(4) Has the direct primary improved the character of men chosen 
to public office? 






















Direct Primaries 


69 


The above letter was sent out by the Bureau of Legislative 
and Administrative Information to all members of the United 
States Senate, representatives in the lower house of Congress, 
governors of states, some forty-five mayors in cities of more 
than 20,000, members of the Republican, Democratic and Pro¬ 
gressive National Committees, Republican, Democratic state 
chairmen, and the Legislative Reference Librarians. 

Replies were received from twenty-five United States sena¬ 
tors, eighty-five members of the House of Representatives, twen¬ 
ty-eight governors, fifteen mayors, nine members of the Re¬ 
publican National Committee, six members of the Democratic 
National Committee, seven members of the Progressive National 
Committee, twelve Republican state chairmen, seventeen Dem¬ 
ocratic state chairmen, three Progressive state chairmen, ana 
twelve Legislative Reference Librarians. 

In answer to the first question, the following answers were 
given: 

United States Senators : 14 favorable, 4 unfavorable, 1 doubt¬ 
ful, 1 advocated an election under preferential ballot and 5 
evaded answers to the questions. 

Members of the House of Representatives: 68 were favor¬ 
able, 5 unfavorable, 2 doubtful, 5 said the primary was success¬ 
ful for local or small districts and 4 evaded answers. 

Governors of States: 16 were favorable, 5 gave no definite 
answers and 6 no answers at all. One was unfavorable. 

Mayors of Cities: 10 were favorable, 2 unfavorable and 3 
evaded answers. 

Republican National Committee: 3 were favorable, 5 un¬ 
favorable and 1 gave no answer. 

Democratic National Committee: 2 were favorable, 2 un¬ 
favorable, 1 doubtful and 1 gave no answer. 

Progressive National Committee: 5 were favorable, and 2 
doubtful. 

Republican State Chainnen: 7 were unfavorable, and 2 
doubtful, 2 were favorable, and one said he had no experience 
with the law. 


70 


University of Kentucky 


Demcoratic State Chairmen : 11 were favorable, 5 unfavor¬ 
able, and 1 was doubtful. 

Progressive State Chairmen: 3 were favorable. 

Legislative Reference Librarians : 10 were favorable and 1 
said he had no experience with direct primaries. 

In answer to the second question, out of the 219 replies re¬ 
ceived from all persons, the following defects were cited: 

Twelve said the voters are indifferent to the merits of candi¬ 
dates. 

Nine said primaries limit the aspirants to public office to 
men of wealth. 

Two maintained that men with newspaper connections have 
an unfair advantage. 

Seven urged that the voter cannot become familiar with the 
candidates in large districts. 

Eleven presented the argument that minority nominations 
are the rule in primaries. 

Six urged the multiplicity of candidates as a serious defect. 

Thirty-three urged the expense of direct primaries as a vital 
objection. 

Two claimed that bosess control the primary. 

Five said no party organization is possible under the direct 
primary system. 

Twelve presented the long ballot as a defect of direct pri¬ 
maries. 

Thirteen maintained that the closed primary is objection¬ 
able. 

Nine maintained that the open primary is objectionable. 

Four said personalities enter into campaigns. 

Two urged the small vote cast as an objection. 

Three objected to preferential voting. 

Eleven said there are defects in the primary laws. 

Two objected to the circulation of petitions. 

Three objected to the length of campaign under the primary 
system. 

One each maintained that nominations are made in a hit or 
miss style, that it is more difficult for the “ office to seek the 


Direct Primaries 


71 


man” under the primary system, that there is no opportunity for 
framing a party platform, that dishonest counts result, that de¬ 
feated candidates and their friends do not support the ticket, 
that there are defects in the registration system, and that the 
primary gives an advantage to thickly settled sections. 

In answer to the third question, the following answers were 
given: 

United States Senators: 15 yes, 4 no, 6 no answer. 

Members of the House of Representatives: 61 yes, 7 no, 1 
doubtful, 12 no answer. 

Governors of States: 8 yes, 3 no, 17 no answer. 

Mayors of Cities: 1 yes, 1 no, 13 no answer. 

Republican National Committee: 2 yes, 4 no, 2 doubtful, 1 
no answer. 

Democratic National Committee: 2 yes, 2 no, 1 doubtful, 1 
no answer. 

Progressive National Committee: 3 yes, 2 doubtful, 2 no 
answer. 

Republican State Chairmen: 3 yes, 5 no,, 1 doubtful, 3 no 
answer. 

Democratic State Chairmen : 11 yes, 3 no, 3 no answer. 

Progressive State Chairmen: 3 yes. 

Legislative Reference Librraians: 6 yes, 1 no, 5 no answer. 

In answer to the fourth question, the following answers 
given: 

United States Senators: 14 yes, 3 no, 3 doubtful, 5 no an¬ 
swer. 

Members of the House of Representatives: 40 yes, 14 no, 5 
doubtful, 20 no answer. 

Governors of States: 5 yes, 5 no, 18 no answer. 

Mayors of Cities: 4 yes, 5 no, 6 no answer. 

Republican National Committee: 1 yes, 5 no, 1 said even¬ 
tually, 2 no answer. 

Democratic National Committee: 1 yes, 3 no, 1 doubtful, 1 
no answer. 

Progressive National Committee: 2 yes, 1 no, 1 doubtful, 3 


no answer. 


72 


University of Kentucky 


Republican State Chairmen: 2 yes, 7 no, 3 no answer. 

Democratic State Chairmen: 1 yes, 10 no, 4 doubtful, 2 no 
answer. 

Legislative Reference Librarians: 5 yes, 6 no answer, 1 no. 

Progressive State Chairmen: 1 yes, 1 no, 1 doubtful. 

(The following extracts are from letters received in reply 
to this questionnaire) : 

Senator John W. Kern, Indiana 

(1) My opinion of the direct primary is distinctly favor¬ 
able. 

(2) There are no “vital defects” in the direct primary 
system. There are serious defects in many of the direct primary 
laws. A study of the several changes and improvements made 
in such laws in states where the system has been in operation for 
a long time will disclose the character of defects to be avoided. 

(3) Where the primary laws have been perfected by giv¬ 
ing the elector a right to vote for a first and second choice, and 
where the machinery provided is not cumbersome, the direct 
primary has been the means of making government more re¬ 
sponsive to popular needs. 

(4) The direct primary has been the means of improving 
the character of men chosen to public office. 

Governor E. W. Major, Missouri. 

On the whole the direct primary law is favorable. There are 
a number of good people who believe that the Governor, United 
States Senators, etc., should be elected by direct primary, and 
that the minor officers should be elected by convention. For 
myself, personally, I am in favor of electing all of them by di¬ 
rect primary. It has been the means of securing good public 
servants who have responded in their service to the interest of 
the people. 


Direct Primaries 73 

Speaker Champ Clark 

A father naturally likes his own child. I started the Con¬ 
gressional primary system in the United States in 1896. 

I think it works very well. I don’t believe it is a cure for 
all the ills that flesh is heir to but I do think it is an improvement 
on the convention system. 

Governor Jaynes Withy combe, Oregon 

(1) The direct primary is working most satisfactorily 

here. 

(2) There are, no doubt, some defects in the primary law, 
but their elimination is altogether too complicated to go into 
in detail here. 

(3) The direct primary has made government more re¬ 
sponsive to popular demands, surely, if not always to popular 
needs. 

(4) The direct primary, I believe, has raised the general 
character average of those in public office. 

Governor W. P. Hunt, Arizona 

In Arizona the direct primary law is applicable to all elec¬ 
tive state officials, as well as to officers of lesser importance. The 
system as exercised in this state has, on the whole, proven very 
satisfactory, and has accomplished a great deal toward doing 
away with the power of the political boss, and the influence of 
the corrupt political machine. 

It is well, in fairness, to state, however, that a direct and 
active interest of the electorate in matters pertaining to State 
government and to the nomination of capable men for office is 
essential under the direct primary system; otherwise an incom¬ 
petent individual backed by corrupt influences may, under cer¬ 
tain conditions, secure the nomination in the absence of a proper 
interest on the part of the citizens. Any danger on this score 
can, of course, be obviated by a proper campaign of education 
and by reasonable activity on the part of the forces of good gov¬ 
ernment. 



74 


University of Kentucky 


In conclusion, however, I will say without hesitancy that the 
system of direct primaries applicable to all officers is immeasur¬ 
ably better than the older method of nominating by conventions. 

Senator Luke Lea, Tennessee 

I beg to advise that Tennessee has no direct, compulsory 
primary law. I am of the opinion, however, that direct primaries 
are right and the best means of nominating candidates. I think 
the direct primary has resulted in making the government more 
responsive to popular needs and the character of public officials 
has been improved. 

Senator James E. Martine, New Jersey 

My opinion of the direct primary system is very favorable. 
I do not believe there are any such vital defects or deficiencies 
in the system as to require elimination. 

I believe that the direct primary has been the means of 
bringing public men more into sympathy with public ideas than 
ever before. 

Governor David I. Walsh, Massachusetts 

My opinion of the direct primary is distinctly favorable. 

Certainly the direct primary “has been the means of mak¬ 
ing government more responsive to popular needs” because it 
has most decidedly freed the electorate from public officials who 
in the old days were nominated by political bosses. 

Governor Winfield S. Hammond, Minnesota 

(Reported by his Secretary) 

(1) The Governor’s opinion is favorable toward the direct 
primary. 

(2) The Governor finds that there are defects in the pri¬ 
mary. 

(3) The Governor believes that the direct primary has 
been the means of making government more responsive to pop¬ 
ular needs. 



Direct Primaries 


75 


(4) The Governor feels that there is perhaps not much 
difference in the character of the men chosen to public office. 
Good men were chosen under the old convention system, and 
bad men, and under the direct primary it is often possible for a 
bad man to get in. 

Democratic State Platform, March 21, 1912 

We favor such amendments to the present primary election 
laws of Indiana as will insure the honest and fair selection of 
candidates to be voted for by the people. 

Democratic State Platform, March 19, 1914 

We declare in favor of a state wide primary election law, 
carefully guarded as to simplicity and economy, at which the 
people shall nominate all candidates for office; that all the pro¬ 
visions of the corrupt practices act and general election laws 
shall be made to apply to such primary elections—the state con¬ 
vention to be retained for the purposes of counsel, organiza¬ 
tion and declaration of party principles, and precede the nomi¬ 
nating primaries. 


Republican Platform, 1912 

This convention indorses the enactment of a law providing 
for the primary election of all delegates to the congressional, 
state and national conventions, the same to be safeguarded by 
the Australian ballot system and a corrupt practice act. 

Progressive State Platform, April 18, 1914 

We believe that the Progressive party is entitled to the sup¬ 
port of the people of Indiana in seeking to accomplish the fol¬ 
lowing results: 

2. Direct primaries for the nomination of all elective offi¬ 
cers, including candidates for president and vice president, and 
of all officials of party organizations, to be held by all parties 
on the same day, which day shall be a registration day, these 
primaries to be governed by the corrupt practices act. 


76 


University of Kentucky 


Citizens Union 

Direct Primary Nominations: Why They Should Be Adopted 

for New York 

The primary, under the present indirect system, is the elec¬ 
tion by enrolled voters of party officers and delegates to a series 
of conventions whose principal function is to nominate candi¬ 
dates for public office. A direct primary is one in which the en¬ 
rolled voters choose by direct vote the party candidates for pub¬ 
lic office, instead of choosing delegates to nominate those candi¬ 
dates. 

The Convention System 

The present indirect system of nominating candidates has 
convinced the average citizen of the futility of attempting any 
contest in the primaries, and only a small percentage of the 
enrolled voters go through the motions of voting for the dele¬ 
gates already selected for them by the leaders. The primary 
vote for delegates to conventions is largely cast by those who 
make more or less of a profession of politics. The convention, 
when assembled, by no means represents the will of even a 
respectable plurality of the party members. For instance, the 
Republican delegation to the state convention from Syracuse, 
in 1908, was opposed to the re-nomination of Governor Hughes. 
Several thousand postal cards sent indiscriminately to enrolled 
Republicans of Syracuse, however, revealed the fact that about 
eight out of every nine strongly desired the Governor ’s re-nom¬ 
ination. 

The convention starts with the handicap of being unrepre¬ 
sentative. The public is handicapped in any effort to enforce 
its will. This is necessarily so, as long as the convention sys¬ 
tem is retained. Public opinion cannot express itself except 
where the issue is defined. The machine, having taken no stand 
prior to the primaries, and having announced no policy, there 
is no specific issue which can be made against the delegate which 
it has picked out. The public is in the position of an individual, 
compelled to give a power of attorney without knowing what 


Direct Primaries 


77 


will be done, and pow T erless to withdraw the pov r er of attorney, 
if its use is abused. At every step in the process, the public 
must work in the open, while the machine leaders conceal their 
hand, and thrive upon the consequent inability of decent dele¬ 
gates to make any effective opposition. 

Furthermore, the meeting place of a convention is about the 
least conducive imaginable to sober consideration of merit. 
Rumor flies after rumor. There is neither time nor opportunity 
for investigation. In a few hours or days, the convention mem¬ 
bers, now brought together as a body for the first time, will 
again part, never to meet again as a body. While they fill the 
hotel lobby, sw^ayed by this report and that, the real business 
of the convention is being done upstairs in a private room 
where the leaders make the slate. When the slate is prepared, 
the convention is allowed for a few hours to look like a delibera¬ 
tive body. 

Suppose a movement is started in opposition to the pro¬ 
posed final slate. Then ensues a contest to control the Commit¬ 
tee on Credentials, and whichever faction wans will generally 
dominate the convention. Contesting delegations, when nec¬ 
essary, appear almost out of the air, over night, in response 
to a telegram, and are calmly seated. 

If these tactics do not positively ensure success, there is 
still a chairman to be elected, and chairmen can be found wRo 
never see a member of the opposing faction rise to speak. Though 
a hundred men yell “No,” the chairman can hear only “Yes.” 
Though a dozen written resolutions may be started tow 7 ard the 
chairman’s desk, they are lost on the v 7 ay. Finally in the midst 
of an uproar in which it is impossible to hear how delegates 
vote, amidst hisses and cat-calls and cheers, the nominations 
are declared to have been made. 

Proven Advantages of Direct Primaries 

Aside from abolishing the evils which have developed in 
the present system of nominations the direct primary offers 
positive advantages over all other methods yet devised for choos- 


78 


University of Kentucky 


ing party officials and party candidates. These advantages may 
fairly be summarized under three heads, as follows: 

(1) It substitutes responsibility to the enrolled voters for 
responsibility to machine bosses. 

(2) It is simpler than other systems. 

(3) It makes the exercise of corrupt influence over the 
nominating process more difficult. 

(1) How the Direct Primary Substitutes Responsibility to the 
Voters for Responsibility to Bosses 

The importance of this feature can hardly be over estimated. 
As Governor Hughes pointed out in a recent speech in New 
York City, three-fourths of the members of the present legisla¬ 
ture come from districts where the nomination of the dominant 
party is equivalent to election. When, in such districts, the 
candidates are nominated by a method which places the real 
election in the hands of a few men, then in soberest earnest 
one may say that the forms of popular government are become 
but a sham. That this is clearly realized in that section of the 
county where one party has been longest and most indisputedly 
in the ascendancy is shown by the fact that in almost every 
state in the South the rules of the Democratic party have re¬ 
quired for years past that its nominations for public office be 
made by the popular vote of its members. That Republican 
candidates are not nominated in the same way is due to the 
purely nominal importance of the minority party’s selections. 
Seven of these southern states have gone further and provided 
for this method of nomination by state wide direct primary laws, 
four of these laws being optional and three mandatory. Why 
should New York continue to abdicate to party “leaders” or 
bosses the choice of any of its public officers? 

Even if in practice under the present system conventions 
were not boss-ridden, and delegates felt that they owed their 
positions to the decision of those who participated in primaries, 
the system would not be truly representative unless more votes 
were case in the latter than is the case at present. Commonly, 


Direct Primaries 


79 


the indirect primaries are not attended by more than ten per 
cent of the enrolled voters, and frequently by only a fraction of 
one per cent. 

Direct primaries bring out quite regularly from 25 to 95 per 
cent, and in the majority party, especially where there is a sharp 
contest, from 55 to 85 per cent of the enrolled voters. This is be¬ 
cause every voter has a voice in selecting party candidates. Ask 
a hundred men who do not attend primaries whether they would 
attend if they could vote directly for the candidates. Almost 
every man of them would probably reply in the affirmative. 

In Minnesota in 1902, for example, after the direct nomi¬ 
nations system had been extended in that state because of the 
success of its trial in Minneapolis, about the same vote was cast 
in the primaries as is cast in off-year elections. In Minneapolis 
in 1900, 69.2 per cent as many votes were cast in the direct pri¬ 
maries as in the general election. In Duluth, in 1901, in a 
municipal election, 69.8 per cent of those who later voted in the 
election cast their votes in the primaries. In the same year the 
direct nomination vote in St. Paul was 94.6 per cent of the 
election vote. In the Dodge county primary in 1902, the di¬ 
rect primary vote was 28.6 per cent more than it had been in 
the general election of 1900. The vote in the Republican pri¬ 
maries throughout the entire state in 1902 was 78.8 per cent of 
the Republican vote in the election which followed. In Minne¬ 
apolis in 1905, the Republicans cast 97 per cent of their votes 
in the primaries, and the Democrats 84 per cent. 

In Crawford county, Pa., where the system has had the 
longest trial, the average vote cast in the direct primaries for 
thirty-one years was 73 per cent of the average election vote for 
the same period. 

In the Essex county, New Jersey, primaries last year, a 
larger vote was cast than in the preceding election for governor. 

Under the old caucus system only 5,000 Republican voters 
took part in the primaries in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1892. Next 
year the direct primary system was established in the city, and 
14,000 Republicans participated. That the great interest in di¬ 
rect primaries is not due to their novelty is clearly shown by 


80 


University of Kentucky 


Cleveland, for the Republican vote at the primaries increased 
to 23,000 in 1896, 28,000 in 1899, and 31,000 in 1901, being then 
95.5 per cent of the vote cast by the Republicans in the election 
which followed. 

Governor Fred M. Warner of Michigan, in his inaugural 
address to the legislature this year, calls attention to the ad¬ 
vantage gained under direct nominations through increasing the 
popular participation in primaries. In Michigan the direct nom¬ 
inations system is in force only for certain localities and offices. 
Governor Warner says: 

“The greater the number of offices involved in the primary, 
the greater will he the interest of the voters therein. At the 
last primary in Michigan 200,000 Republicans and 40,000 Dem¬ 
ocrats recorded their will.” 

A candidate nominated in such a primary where the vast 
majority of the enrolled voters actually express their prefer¬ 
ence, is forced to recognize that his responsibility is to these en¬ 
rolled voters. A candidate nominated in a convention created 
by indirect primaries, where only an exceedingly small per¬ 
centage of the enrolled voters actually attend and vote, is forced 
to recognize as the sponsors of his candidacy the men who, by 
possession of all the strategic advantages, are able to control 
those primaries. This difference between the two systems can¬ 
not be disputed, even by those whose confidence in the voters 
is so small, or whose selfish interests are so great and compel¬ 
ling, that they prefer any system which wdll limit to a few per¬ 
sons participation in the choice of candidates. 

( 2) Wherein the Direct Primary is Simpler Than the Conven¬ 
tion System of Making Party Nominations 

Under the convention system there is a primary, followed 
by various meetings of delegates. Under the direct nomina¬ 
tions system, except where a single convention may be assigned 
the duty of drafting a state platform, one day’s primary elec¬ 
tion settles everything, and the whole cumbrous and expensive 
machinery of an out-worn system, with its delegates and con¬ 
ventions innumerable, is at one stroke, and with no loss to the 
community, abolished. 


Direct Primaries 


81 


Enrolled voters, at present, go to the primary and caucus 
and cast their ballots for the party officers and for delegates to 
the Assembly district convention and to county, city, con¬ 
gressional district, senatorial district, or judicial district con¬ 
ventions, as the case may be. The delegates meet in the As¬ 
sembly district convention and elect delegates to the state con¬ 
vention. This is the usual roundabout system. 

When Governor L. P. C. Garvin, of Rhode Island, wrote in 
1903, a strong party organization, covering every section of 
the state, entails a large expenditure, and the money comes 
chiefly from candidates and holders of lucrative offices and the 
beneficiaries of legislation,” he had in mind such a cumbersome 
and expensive system as is made necessary under our present 
primary law. 

An illustration of the uselessness of much of the machinery 
of this system was furnished when a direct vote was taken in 
certain New York City districts on the question of whether 
Charles E. Hughes should receive the Republican nomination 
for Governor. The County Chairman considered the vote as in¬ 
structions to the delegates. Why, then, should there be any dele¬ 
gates when we can in every primary secure the direct expression 
of the enrolled voters as to their choice for the nomination? 

(3) How the Direct Primary Makes the Exercise of Corrupt In¬ 
fluence Over the dominating Process More Difficult 

It is easier to corrupt the few than to corrupt the many. It 
has never been demonstrated that the average integrity of the 
man who makes a business of politics is greater than the average 
integrity of the average citizen. Under the present system, men 
wdio have successfully made a business of politics and who con¬ 
trol the nominations are the only ones necessary to be “seen” 
in order to get an undeserved nomination. Direct nominations, 
as has been shown, actually bring out to the primaries a large 
majority of the enrolled voters. This majority, voting directly 
for the party nominees, has been found more difficult to cor¬ 
rupt than the few who control the nominations under the pres¬ 
ent system. 


82 


University of Kentucky 


Where there have been serious charges of corruption in the 
direct primaries, the fault has been the failure to place in the 
statutes proper provisions against corrupt prcatices, or with 
such weak provisions as appear in the laws of Wisconsin and 
Missouri, for example, regarding the participation of the voters 
of one party in the primaries of another party. In these two 
states (Wisconsin and Missouri) it is now being charged that 
the candidate of the majority party was nominated in the pri¬ 
maries by purchased votes. These purchased votes included, it 
is claimed, practically all of the purchasable element of the 
minority party, which went into the primaries of the majority 
party and there voted for candidates. The fact is that neither 
of these states has any such provisions regarding party enroll¬ 
ment as are now in force in the State of New York. We should 
retain these provisions under our direct primary and will ex¬ 
tend them to such localities as have not the full benefits of this 
system under our present law. This is in accordance with the 
recommendations of Governor Hughes. Further safeguards 
against corruption at the direct primary are suggested in the 
following recommendations of the Governor: 

“That the Corrupt Practices act be extended so as to pre¬ 
scribe the expenses which may lawfully be incurred in connec¬ 
tion with candidacies for nomination and to ensure the publicity 
of all expense. 

“That the amount which may be expended by candidates 
for nomination be limited. 

“That generally, with such changes as may be necessary 
for adaptation, the safeguards of the law governing general elec¬ 
tions be extended to primary elections.” 

Fallacy of Objections to the Direct Primary 

Never was the convention system abolished in any state 
without a severe struggle against the special interests intrenched 
by that system. So it is in New York; and the objections offered 
are in some cases so plausible that they have misled men whose 
sincerity is unquestioned. That there is in no place where di¬ 
rect nominations are used any considerable sentiment for a re- 


Direct Primaries 


83 


turn to the old system, while there is a nation wide agitation for 
extending the system, is a clear indication of the fallacy of 
these objections. \ et it may be of advantage to take up in 
their order some of the points most frequently raised by oppon¬ 
ents, and to show what evidence is obtainable bearing upon them. 

(7) As to the Question of Expense 

It has been charged that by making two campaign neces¬ 
sary instead of one, and rendering these campaigns more ex¬ 
pensive than under the convention system, the direct primary 
disbars the poor man in favor of the rich. 

The general experience of other states fails to bear out this 
assertion. Governor Ford of New Jersey, in his annual message 
of January 12th, 1909, in which he recommends the extension 
of New Jersey’s present direct primary law for local offices to 
include governor, congressman, delegates to national conven¬ 
tions and members of party committees, says of this assertion 
that it is ‘‘false and absolutely i untrueA 9 To the same effect is 
the statement (quoted from Collier’s Weekly, January 23, 1909) 
of Everett Colby, former state senator of New Jersey, “that 
the man who last received the Democratic nomination for state 
senator in liis county won it against the Democratic machine 
with an expenditure of $250; this in a county of 350,000 in¬ 
habitants, after an aggressive campaign.” United States Sen¬ 
ator-elect Joseph L. Bristow, who was nominated in Kansas last 
summer by direct primaries over Chester I. Long, the candidate 
of the railroads and the Republican machine, says in a letter to 
the New Hampshire Direct Primaries Association: “Campaign¬ 
ing before a primary can be made as expensive as the candidate 
is disposed to make it. Kansas is 200 miles wide and 400 miles 
long, has a population of 1,800,00 and is subdivided into 105 
counties. Our United States senator this year was nominated 
by direct primary. One of the candidates is reported to have 
expended $25,000 and the other $3,500. The one who expended 
$3,500 was nominated. Of the two candidates for governor, one 
spent between $6,000 and $7,000, and the other about $3,500, 
and the one spending the smaller amount was nominated.” Of 


84 


University of Kentucky 


this same contest William Allen White, the well known writer 
and journalist, speaking from personal observation, says: “His 
(Bristow’s) opponent, Chester I. Long, had all the money that 
public service corporations cared to pour into the state, and yet 
Long failed. ’ ’ Mr. Bristow himself adds, in another letter: 
“It does not cost any more from the practical side of politics to 
appeal to the people for their support than to pay the expenses 
attendant to conventions.” 

Governor Noel of Mississippi bears similar testimony, as 
follows: “While primary elections involve an expense of travel, 
there is very little other expense. There were six candidates 
for governor in this state, and a canvass of fifteen months prac¬ 
tically. My expense was about $6,000. It need not have been 
over $2,000, if the campaign had been limited, as it should have 
been, to about four months, and proper reports required.” Ora 
Vvfilliams, Secretary to the Governor of Iowa, says: “The suc¬ 
cessful candidate for governor (in the recent primary election in 
Iowa) spent but a few hundred dollars.” James A. Frear, Sec¬ 
retary of State of Wisconsin, says: “All of the present state 
officers in Wisconsin (who were nominated by direct primaries) 
are what would be known as men of modest means. Tlieir se¬ 
lection resulted from their attitude on public questions, or their 
legislative record in recent years.’’ Professor John A. Fairlie, a 
recognized authority on public law, says in a letter: “In a hotly 
contested primary the necessary expenses will be greater than in 
a non-contested convention; and a good primary law should con¬ 
tain restrictions on the amount and purposes of expenditure. 
Personally I succeeded in a direct primary (for the constitutional 
convention of Michigan) in a district covering two counties, with 
eleven candidates for three places, at a total expense of about 
$25.00 for railroad fare.” 

These statements, and many others of which they are but 
a sample, prove conclusively that the man of limited means is 
not debarred by the direct primary from obtaining nomination 
for, or election to, public office. 

Nor is the advantage of wealth greater than under other 
systems. What benefit did Senator Long derive from his heavy 


Direct Primaries 


85 


expenditure before the Kansas primaries ? His opponent was 
nominated after spending one-seventh as much. In Washing¬ 
ton, Senator Ankeny, the millionaire lumberman, was defeated 
for re-nomination by Wesley L. Jones, a comparatively poor 
man. Senator-elect Johnson, of North Dakota, is a farmer of 
moderate means, and spent almost nothing in his campaign for 
nomination. His three competitors are said by him to have 
spent at least $250,000 without avail. The chief instance to the 
contrary, relied upon by the opponents of direct primaries, is 
that of Senator Stephenson in Wisconsin; yet as a matter of 
fact this case has no bearing on the question of direct primaries 
in New York state, and for the following reason: “Wisconsin 
has no law limiting the amount which may be expended by a 
candidate for nomination. In New York, on the other hand, 
section 41z of the Penal Code provides that no candidate shall 
expend “for any purpose tending in any way, directly or in¬ 
directly, to promote, or aid in securing, his nomination and elec¬ 
tion,” more than a certain specified amount, fixed by the act ac¬ 
cording to the office for which he is running. Moreover, the direct 
primary law itself, as outlined by Governor Hughes, would still 
further regulate the amount which might lawfully be expended 
in connection with candidacies for nomination. Such a remedy 
has now been recommended for Wisconsin by Governor David¬ 
son. Furthermore, it is. charged that Senator Stephenson’s 
enormous campaign fund was largely spent in corruption, and 
this charge is being investigated by the Wisconsin legislature. It 
is true that to control a direct primary by corruption, when pos¬ 
sible, is vastly more expensive, as well as more difficult, than to 
control an indirect primary by the same means. 

The critics who dwell upon the alleged expensiveness of 
campaigning under direct primaries neglect to mention either 
the amount, the source, or the character of the expenses under 
the present system. First, as to the amount and the source. 
Governor Warner of Michigan says in a letter: “I am certain 
that I speak within bounds when I state that there was a con¬ 
test for the nomination of governor in Michigan a few years ago 
under the convention system, when more money was expended 


86 


University of Kentucky 


than will be used in the next ten years under the direct voting 
system, ’ ’ In his inaugural address to the General Assembly, Jan- 
uary 12th, 1909, Governor Kitchin of North Carolina urges the 
adoption of regulated direct primaries in place of the present 
unregulated convention system, and says: “It ought to diminish 
the expenses of campaigns for nominations. Should such ex¬ 
penses for legitimate purposes increase as they have increased in 
recent years (under the convention system ) it will soon be that 
none but a wealthy man can hopefully aspire to our higher offices 
unless others pay his campaign expenses for the nomination.” 

What are some of these expenses under the convention sys¬ 
tem? Disregarding its peculiar liability to improper expendi¬ 
tures, and enumerating only such as it legitimately entails, there 
are first of all those incident to the campaign for the election of 
delegates from all parts of the state or district. Then there are 
the clerical expenses required to plan and arrange for the con¬ 
vention. Above all, there are the heavy expenses connected with 
the convention itself—the railroad fares of the delegates, their 
hotel accommodations, the rent of the convention hall, the print¬ 
ing, telephoning and telegraphing, and finally the decorations, 
music and miscellaneous entertainment provided. These things 
are never managed economically. Who pays for them? “The 
party organization,” someone may answer. Yes, but where does 
the party organization get the money? Some light is thrown 
upon this question by the records of the Mazet Committee in 
1900, where it was shown from sworn testimony that 28 judges 
had paid from $1,500 to $12,000 apiece—in some cases the equiv¬ 
alent of a year’s salary—to various party organizations and 
campaign committees, for the purpose, avowed or understood, of 
obtaining nomination. 

All campaign contributions by candidates for judicial office 
have since been forbidden by section 41z (b) of the Penal Code, 
but the very fact that it was thought necessary to pass this law, 
and the law above mentioned, limiting the campaign expenses 
of all candidates, indicates that the cost of the convention sys¬ 
tem, nominally paid by the party organization, really falls in 
large part upon those seeking nomination. Nor can the expenses 


Direct Primaries 


87 


of a candidacy for nomination under this system properly be 
gauged merely by the amount paid out by the aspirant prior 
to his nomination. A large proportion of the party campaign 
fund, out of which the various expenses above specified are de¬ 
frayed, is obtained from office holders. Forty per cent of the 
Democratic campaign fund in New York county in 1907 was 
contributed from this source. Now if dependence upon the party 
organization for nomination subjects a man, after his election 
to office, to these periodical contributions, which are to be used 
in large part for the payment of other men’s nomination ex¬ 
penses, it is evident that the real cost to him of his own nomina¬ 
tion at present is far greater than at first appears. May it not 
fairly be assumed that he would spend less in the long run under 
a system which at one blow relieved the party of the necessity 
of holding conventions, placed the whole cost of primary elec¬ 
tions upon the state, and made the candidate indebted for his 
nomination, not to the organization, but to the party at large? 

As to that portion of the expense of nomination under the 
convention system which in no way falls upon the candidate, but 
is actually paid by the party organization, is it any advantage, 
looked at from the broadest point of view, that it should be so 
paid? When a candidate pays the whole cost of his nomination 
himself is he apt to be more, or less, independent than if part of 
that cost is paid by an organization, the finances of which, as 
well as the control of nominations, are in the hands of a small, 
irresponsible group of men ? It is no argument to say that, in 
any event, the expenses of a candidate’s campaign for election 
are partly paid by the party, for in this latter case he is the 
chosen representative of the party, and, as such, entitled to its 
assistance. As a candidate for nomination, on the other hand, he 
is merely an applicant for this representative position, and if 
any portion of his expenses in this capacity is paid by the paity 
the result is merely to render him the more indebted to the little 
group of men from whom his nomination emanates. Gfoveinoi 
Kitchin, of North Carolina, continuing the passage from lus 
inaugural address above quoted, says: “If others pay his (the 
candidate for nomination) expenses, he will feel under oWiga- 


/ 


88 


University of Kentucky 



tions to them, and will not be in a position to render the people 
his best service, especially in matters involving doubt as to thei 
path of public duty. The public should insist on having every 
official free from obligation for his nomination for office except 
to the people.” 

As to the sources, other than candidates and office holders, 
from which the party organization itself derives the money with 
which to pay the expenses of nominating conventions, Mr. Everett 
Colby is reported by Collier’s Weekly to have said: “It is better 
for a poor man to stump on the streets, speak from cart-tail or 
soap-box, or make a house-to-house canvass, than to have him 
elected by money furnished by corporations or by wealthy and 
interested individuals.” 

Finally, as to the character of the candidate's expenses 
under the convention system and the direct primaries system 
respectively—which is of more benefit to the community as a 
whole, that huge sums of money should be wastefully and ex¬ 
travagantly spent for party conventions, and objects incidental 
thereto, or that similar amounts should be disbursed by the candi¬ 
dates for nomination themselves, in traveling about making 
speeches, arid in printing and distributing literature in advocacy 
of their claims? Which form of expenditure is of greater edu¬ 
cational value? Here, as elsewhere, one must have in mind, not 
conventions as they might possibly be, but conventions as they 
unfortunately are; and to suggest that the state conventions of 
recent-years have exercised over the people at large an educa¬ 
tional influence of any sort, save perhaps as horrible examples, 
is little short of ludicrous. On the other hand, anything which 
forces candidates for party nomination to go about among the 
voters and attempt to convince the latter that they should be 
selected, not only brings the candidates into closer touch with 
popular needs and desires, but extends to the preliminary cam¬ 
paign for nomination those educative features which are so often 
praised in connection with the campaign for election. 


Direct Primaries 89 

(2) As to Representative Government 

The argument is advanced that direct primaries are a blow 
at representative government. The truth is exactly the reverse. 
Even if the delegates to nominating conventions were chosen 
by the voters with as much care as would be exercised in the 
election of candidates for office, and were free to exercise their 
untrammeled judgment—neither of which assumptions is in 
line with the notorious facts—nevertheless the candidates chosen 
by these delegates are, at best, indirectly representative of a 
small fraction of the party, whereas those chosen by direct pri¬ 
maries are directly representative of the masses of the enrolled 
voters who participate in the choice. 

As to the principle involved, the following passage—from 
Governor Hughes’ speech at the dinner of The Hughes Alliance, 
New York, January 22nd, 1909—is conclusive: 

Representative government is government through representatives. 
We choose officers to do for us what we cannot do or do not think it 
wise to undertake, ourselves. For example, we cannot well make our 
laws directly, and so we elect legislators to make them for us. We 
cannot as a people at large execute the laws and so we select executive 
officers to represent us in their execution. We cannot in an assembly 
of the people decide judicial controversies, and so we choose judges to 
represent us in deciding cases. 

But we do not elect men to, choose our governors and our mayors 
and the members of the legislature for us. We elect our governors, our 
mayors, and our legislators direct. They are chosen by direct vote of 
the people. These officers are none the less representative, and we have 
none the less representative government because we choose them by 
direct vote. If any one were now to propose that we should elect a 
body of men to choose our governor for us we would laugh at him. 
If any one saw fit to argue that this was necessary to the maintenance 
of representative government we should think the argument ridiculous. 

Now, if we elect a governor by direct vote of the people, how is it 
a subversion of represeyitative government for the enrolled voters of a 
party to choose their candidates for Governor by direct votef If we' 
elect an assemblyman in an assembly district by direct vote of the 
voters in that district, why should not the members of the party in that 
district decide directly who should be their representative as a candi¬ 
date for the assembly? Is the one any the less representative govern¬ 
ment than the other? 


90 


University of Kentucky 


The candidates of a party are the party representatives in running 
for office, as the elected officer is the representative of the people in 
discharging the duties of the office. If we are to make party govern - 
ment analogous to the general government then ice should elect the- 
party representatives by the direct vote of the members of the party. 

( 3) That State Wide Direct Primaries Favor Populous Centers 

as Against Rural Districts 

» 

This argument, in various forms has been used, perhaps 
more widely than any other, to discredit Governor Hughes’ 
recommendation of a direct primary law for New York state. 
The statement has been made by almost every opponent of the 
system that such a law, if adopted here, would result in New 
York City, Buffalo and Rochester’s obtaining all the state offices, 
and controlling state offices, and controlling state elections, to 
the exclusion of the smaller cities and the rural districts. 

Actual experience does not warrant any such assertion. 
Governor Warner of Michigan, says in a letter: “This state¬ 
ment that the primary system of making nominations favors the 
populous centers as against the scattered rural populations is 
not borne out by experience here in Michigan. At the last pri¬ 
mary election there were three candidates for the Republican 
nomination for Governor. My chief opponent as well as my¬ 
self reside in villages of less than one thousand population, while 
the candidate who received the smallest vote lives in the city of 
Detroit.” The Hon. M. M. Beck, of Holton, Kansas, editor of 
the Holton Recorder, writes : “Eastern Kansas is thickly popu¬ 
lated, western Kansas sparsely. In the western part of the state 
many large counties have only from 400 to 1,000 voters, and 
there is no special kick coming from western Kansas. The pri¬ 
mary law is as popular there as in the more densely populated 
districts.” F. S. Jackson, the attorney general of Kansas, bears 
similar testimony as follows: “The primary system does not 
favor populous centers any more than the convention system; 
in fact, not so much, as under the convention system the popu¬ 
lous centers are given very large representation. The delegates 
are usually chosen according to the dictates of party bosses, and, 



Direct Primaries 


91 


when assembled in convention, they have every opportunity for 
trading and arranging to cast the vote of all the populous centers 
together to defeat the rights of the rural population.” Senator- 
elect Joseph L. Bristow, of Kansas, bears similar testimony: “In 
our state the primary did not favor the populous centers. The 
man best and most favorably known will receive the votes of 
the people, regardless of the section of the state in which he 
may live. ” In support of this statement it may be noted that, 
of the eight principal state officers nominated by direct pri¬ 
maries and elected last fall, six came from cities or towns of 
less than 3,000 inhabitants, one from a city of 4,851 inhabitants, 
and one from a city of 10,862 inhabitants. The five largest cities 
of the state are not represented on the state ticket. 

Secretary of State James A. Frear, of Wisconsin, writes as 
follows: “In Wisconsin, Milwaukee, the metropolis, has over 
300,000 inhabitants. The second city, Superior, has approxi¬ 
mately 40,000. Of the five state officers elected under the pri¬ 
mary election only two, the Lieutenant Governor and Attorney 
General, represent cities of over 5,000 inhabitants, and several 
of the state officers come from still smaller communities. The 
unsuccessful candidate for Attorney General was from Mil¬ 
waukee. ’ ’ 

Of the 21 governors, now in office, who were chosen by di¬ 
rect primaries, six come from towns of less than 1,000 inhabi¬ 
tants, six more from cities or towns of less than 5,000, four 
from cities of less than 20,000. This makes sixteen out of 
twenty-one who come from cities of less than 20,00 inhabitants. 
Of the remaining five, one comes from Birmingham, Ala., pop¬ 
ulation 38,415; one from Portland, Oregon, population 90,426; 
from Memphis, Tenn., population 102,320; one from Kansas 
City, Mo., population 163,752, and one from Chicago, population 
1,698,575. 

These statistics, which were furnished by the Secretaries 
of State of the several states above mentioned, are a conclusive 
answer to the assertion that, under the direct primaiies system 
in New York, all the state officers would go to the large cities, 
and the country districts would be left unrepresented. 


92 


University of Kentucky 


The sudden solicitude of convention system politicians for 
the country voters has its amusing side in this state. One would 
suppose that the conventions at present were usually strongly 
influenced by the country delegates, and that the tickets nomi¬ 
nated contained at least a reasonable number of rural candi¬ 
dates. If, however, we look at the Republican state ticket of 
1908, nominated by a state convention, we find, as shown by the 
foregoing table, that the candidate for Governor came from New 
York City, the candidate for Lieutenant Governor from Syra¬ 
cuse ; the candidate for Comptroller from Albany; the candidate 
for Treasurer from Rochester ; the candidate for Secretary of 
State from New York City; the candidate for Attorney General 
from Buffalo. Has the rural voter ever heard of these obscure 
hamlets? The only candidate who came from what might be 
called the rural portion of the state was the State Engineer and 
Surveyor. 

Who are the leaders in the deliberations of state conven¬ 
tions? Those who control the machines of New York City, Buffalo, 
Rochester, Syracuse and Albany. A little reflection will further 
reveal to the fair-minded reader the fact that the cities tend 
to produce powerful political machines far more than do the 
country districts, and that any system which ensures to these 
machines the control of nominations, is not a system which has 
at heart the interests of the rural portion of the state. 

If, then, it is the proved experience of other states that the 
large cities enjoy no preponderance in the distribution of offices, 
why should not the same hold true in regard to the general con¬ 
trol over nominations f Any expectation of a contrary result 
must rest almost exclusively on the unsupported assertions of 
those party leaders who are opposed to direct primaries. 

“ 'Large centers of population would dominate primary elec¬ 
tions,’ says Mr. Wadsworth. So they would at the general elec¬ 
tion if they voted as a unit. But large centers of population do 
not vote as a unit, at the general election, and neither would they 
—at the primary elections. Big cities probably have a greater in¬ 
fluence under the convention system than they would have under 
the direct nomination system; New York county, with Erie, dom- 


Direct Primaries 


93 


mates Democratic state conventions. Tammany dominates New 
\ ork City Democratic conventions. New York county is not 
without influence in Republican state conventions, as the effect 
of Representative Parsons’ successful support of Governor 
Hughes at the last two conventions proves. If Tammany has a 
bare majority of the Democratic votes in this city, it casts the 
whole strength of the city in a Democratic state convention. 
Under the direct system, if Tammany had only a bare majority, 
almost half the party votes of this city could co-operate with 
anti-Tammany elements in the rural districts. The Anti-Tam¬ 
many Democrats in this city are voiceless now. Under the di¬ 
rect system they would be effective in the measure of whatever 
strength they possessed. This illustrates the fallacy of the 
speaker’s argument.” (Quoted from an editorial in the New 
York Tribune of February 8tli.) 

What the direct primaries system will really prevent is the 
present dickering as to these nominations among party bosses, 
and their geographical distribution between the several local 
organizations on the same basis as appointive patronage. It 
may well be that under direct primaries some leaders will se¬ 
cure fewer offices for their henchmen than under the present 
system, but the average voter will shed few tears over such a 
result. 


( 4 ) That “Plurality Nommations” Are Unfair 

The argument that the direct primaries system is unfair 
because it permits the selection of candidates by a mere plurality 
ofl the party, has a strange sound as coming from the lips of 
those who support the present method. If it is such a dire evil—- 
an evil that must be prevented at all costs—that something less 
than an absolute majority of the enrolled party voters shall 
be able by direct vote to select the party candidate, what shall 
be said of a system under which two or three per cent of these 
enrolled voters in a bare majority of the election districts can 
name the delegates to each Assembly district convention, and a 
bare majority of these Assembly district conventions can 1 in 
turn choose delegates to the state convention, and a bare ma- 


94 


University of Kentucky 


jority of the delegates so chosen to the state convention can 
finally have the privilege of registering the decision previously 
arrived at by a dozen men in a back room. To what extent the 
average nomination under this system can be regarded as a nom¬ 
ination by the majority of the party, the reader may decide for 
himself. Instead of rejecting the direct primary because it fails 
to ensure the ideal result, namely, that all nominations shall 
represent the actually expressed will of a majority of the en¬ 
rolled voters, we should rather hail it as the method above all 
others by which, under actual conditions, this ideal may be most 
nearly approximated. 

Approach the question from another standpoint. Why 
should one condemn in the case of the primary election a 
criterion of popular choice what for years has been all but uni¬ 
versally accepted as decisive at the general election ? If a plural¬ 
ity of the people’s votes may elect a man to public office, why 
should a plurality of his party’s votes be insufficient to elect 
him candidate for that office? 

(5) That Direct Primaries Would Prevent “Fusion,” and the 
Non-Partisan Nomination of Judges 

A careful study of the facts fails to disclose any foundation 
for the above assertion. What is the one controlling influence 
which first prompted, and has more and more frequently com¬ 
pelled, the party leaders to adopt this policy in regard to 
judicial nominations? What force has generated such wide¬ 
spread discontent with a dominant machine as to break down 
the traditional partisanship of majority party leaders, and unite 
them with independent organizations in a “fusion” campaign? 
Obviously the answer is to be found in the development of public 
opinion. The party “leaders” have not been the leaders in this 
movement. Their desire has been for a straight ticket victory 
and for the distribution of nominations on the basis of services 
rendered to the party organization. It is not they who have edu¬ 
cated the people to disregard party lines, for the sake of inde¬ 
pendent judges or honest city government. It is an increasingly 
enlightened public sentiment which has wrung from them a 





Direct Primaries 


95 


tardy and reluctant recognition. Would the direct primary sys- 
f em increasing, as it does the popular share in the nominating 
process, and reducing to a minimum the opportunity of narrow 
minded partisanship to obstruct the operation of public opinion 

be apt to decrease the frequency of non-partisan judicial nom¬ 
inations or fusion tickets? Would it not rather increase the like¬ 
lihood of such enlightened action? 

It is perfectly possible to provide in a direct primary law 
that a candidate for judicial or other office may have his name 
placed by petition on the primary ballots of all parties. 

. At least a portion of the press may be trusted to bring the 
facts in regard to such candidacies to the knowledge of every 
man who reads and who takes the slightest interest in electoral 
campaigns. The ultimate decision, then, rests with the voters, 
and provided only that the situation be clearly brought to their 
attention, the friends of good government will be content to 
leave the result in their hands. 

Mr. Charles II. Young, President of the Republican Club of 
New York City, spoke, in a recent address, as if a direct nomina¬ 
tions law would make it impossible for party leaders so to 
control the action of their obstinate and blindly partisan fol¬ 
lowers as to prevail upon the latter to vote for a candidate of 
the opposite party. On the contrary, it will leave the average 
party voter—who sets far less store by regularity than does the 
average party leader—free to follow that course which the real 
leaders of opinion in the community are constantly making more 
familiar and more acceptable to him. Under direct primaries it 
might not have been possible for Pat McCarren—against the 
protests of all the newspapers—to turn down Judge Blackmar, 
a Republican, and nominate his personal counsel in his stead. 
The fact that Blackmar and Stapleton, the non-partisan candi¬ 
dates, were chosen on election day, proves that the people of 
Brooklyn were more to be trusted in such matters than the party 
bosses. The only sort of '‘fusion” which direct primaries will 
render more difficult is that which Speaker Wadsworth described 
—either unwittingly, or because it was the only sort with which 
he was familiar—namely, “fusion” based on a division of the 


96 


University of Kentucky 


offices between the contracting party machines. The value of 
this sort of thing was well illustrated -by the fate of the Hearst- 
Republican “fusion” ticket in the New York City election of 
1907. However good the intentions of the Republican leaders 
may have been, their campaign was based on a bargain rather 
than on a principle. The loss of this type of “fusion” will be of 
little moment to the community. 

( 6 ) That Direct Nominations Permit the Voters of One Party 
to Participate in the Primaries of Another 

In closing we may consider for a moment the argument that 
under the direct primaries system, the voters of one party are 
given an opportunity to take part in the primaries of another, 
for the purpose of forcing upon the other a weak or unfit candi¬ 
date. In support of this assertion it is urged that in Missouri 
last fall, the purchasable element in the Republican party, by 
participation in the Democratic primaries, succeeded in defeat¬ 
ing Governor Folk for the nomination for United States senator 
in favor of William J. Stone. Similar unfortunate results, it is 
said, have been experienced in Minnesota and in several other 
states. In order to demonstrate, however, the utter irrelevancy 
of this “argument,” it is only necessary to call attention to 
the fact that there are two kinds of direct primaries—the “open 
primary” and the '“closed primary.” Under the “open pri¬ 
mary,” which is the system in force in the states above referred 
to, the voter who desires to take part in a primary election, on 
entering the polling place either asks for the party ballot, which 
he wishes to have given him, or in other states, is given a “blanket 
ballot,” containing (as do the ballots at general elections in New 
York) the primary tickets of all the parties; or, in still other 
states, is handed a packet containing the separate primary ballots 
of all the parties, and instructed to use whichever ones he wishes, 
and leave the rest in the voting booth. According to all of these 
methods, each voter may vote for the candidates for nomination 
of any one party, (though obviously not for those of more than 
one), and no attempt is made to prevent Democrats from taking 
a hand in Republican nominations, or vice versa. 


Direct Primaries 


97 


It is not, however, any of these forms of the “open pri¬ 
mary,” which Governor Hughes has recommended for New 
York stte. It is the other system—the “ closed primary ”— 
which he advocates. 

Under this system participation in the primaries of any 
party is limited by law to the members of that party. As in 
the case of the “open primary,” however, more than one form 
of the “closed primary” is possible, the difference consisting in 
the method by which party membership is determined. 

Under one form, there is no party enrollment, such as we 
are familar with in New York state, but the voter, on entering 
the polling place at the primary election, is asked which of the 
several party primary ballots he wishes to have given him. He 
must answer in a good voice, and if any person present has 
reason to suppose that he is trying to obtain the ballot of a party 
to which he does not belong, such person may challenge him and 
compel him to take an oath as to his party allegiance. This 
provision has often been found inadequate to prevent the mem¬ 
bers of one party from participating in the primaries of another. 

The second form of “closed primary”—the form which 
Governor Hughes recommends—is one under which the same 
method of party enrollment which is now in use in New York 
State for indirect primaries would be applied to direct primary 
elections. Under this form of “closed primary” no voter could 
participate—any more than under the present convention sys- , 
tern.—in the primaries of any party of which he was not a didy 
enrolled member. It is thus obvious that the argument against 
direct primaries, which might have some force as applied to 
the “open primary,” or to the “closed primary” without party 
enrollment, lias aboslutely no bearing upon the direct primary 
law recommended by Governor Hughes. 

Arena. 35: 587-90. June, 1906 

Direct Primaries. Ira Cross. 

Today we find that the caucus and convention no longer 
express the, popular will. Delegates have become the main- 
shafts of political machines. Corporate wealth and influence 


D. P.—4 


98 


University of Kentucky 


dictate the policies of the dominant parties, while candidates 
and office holders, instead of being responsible to the voters, are 
responsible to the boss and the ring which nominate them. 

All attempts at reforming the caucus and the convention 
have resulted in dismal failures. New York, California, and 
Cook county, Illinois, which have the most highly legalized cau¬ 
cus systems, are still boss-ridden and machine controlled. 

There can be but one remedy—the government must be 
brought back to the people. They must be given the power to 
directly nominate their party candidates. If they are sufficiently 
intelligent to directly elect them by means of the Australian 
ballot, they are sufficiently intelligent to directly nominate them. 

Under the caucus system, no matter how highly legalized, 
the voters will not take part in making the nominations. They 
are not even interested, for in the caucuses they do not nominate 
candidates, they only elect delegates, and a delegate, no matter 
how honst he may be, cannot correctly represent the wishes of 
his constituents upon all, and quite often not even upon a small 
portion, of the candidates to be nominated in the convention. 
Do the facts uphold the argument? Take the caucus system at 
its best and what do we find? In San Francisco, New York 
city, and Cook county, Illinois, which places since 1901, 1900, 
and 1899 respectively, have had the most highly legalized and 
reformed caucus systems in the United States, an average of but 
39 per cent of the voters of San Francisco, 41 per cent of those 
in New York, and 38 per cent of those in Cook county, Illinois, 
take part in making nominations. If but this small number of 
people attend the caucuses when such great care is taken to pro¬ 
tect the voice and the will of the people, what a handful must 
turn out in those states in which few if any legal regulations are 
thrown around the nominating machinery. Under the caucus sys¬ 
tem the resulting government cannot represent the will of the 
majority. It can only represent the will of the minority, and 
it is to this small minority (composed though it usually is of 
men who are in politics for what there is in it) that our officials 
are directly responsible not only for their nomination but also 
for their subsequent election. 


Direct Primaries 


99 


On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the direct pri¬ 
mary greatly increases the attendance at the primaries. The 
reason for this is that it gives the voters a real voice in making 
party nominations. They can express their choice upon all 
candidates from governor down to justice of the peace, and by 
this means are able to exert a direct influence upon the final 
results. 

In Cleveland, Ohio, under the old caucus system, only 5,000 
voters took part in nominating the Republican candidates for 
city offices in 1892, but in 1893, when they used one of the most 
poorly-framed and extra-legal primary systems imaginable, over 
14,000 Republicans turned out. This number increased to 23,000 
in 1896, to 28,000 in 1899, and to 31,000 in 1901, the vote at the 
primaries during these years averaging more than 95 per cent 
of the vote cast by the Republicans at the subsequent elections. 
In Crawford county, Pennsylvania, where the direct primary 
has been used since 1860, the average attendance at the pri¬ 
maries has been more than 73 per cent. In the 25th Con¬ 
gressional district, where the system has been used since 1890, 
77 per cent of the voters have made the nominations. Even 
where there was no contest, as was the case in 1894 and 1900, 
more than 62 per cent of the voters attended the primaries. What 
other portion of the United States can show such a record as 
this? “In Minneapolis,” writes Mr. Day of that city, “under a 
highly legalized caucus system, but 8 per cent of the voters at¬ 
tended the caucuses.” Under the direct primary, however, 91 
per cent of the voters attended in 1900, 85 per cent in 1902, an 
off-year, and 93 per cent in 1904. In Hennepin county, Minne¬ 
sota, in 1904, over 97 per cent of the voters took part in making 
congressional nominations. In the same year the returns from 
eighteen counties, scattered indiscriminately throughout Minne¬ 
sota (all the returns that could be obtained), showed that over 
72 per cent of the voters took part in the primaries. These 
figures show most conclusively that the difficulty is not the 
apathy of the people. Their civic patriotism is as strong as it 
has ever been in years past. They are interested in the govern- 


100 


University of Kentucky 


ment and will attend the primaries, if they are but given the op¬ 
portunity to directly nominate their party candidates. The 
difficulty lies with the caucus system. It is indirect and in¬ 
efficient. 


ARTICLES FAVORING THE 
NEGATIVE 




























































































Direct Primaries 103 

North American. 190: 1-14. July, 1909 
The Direct Primary. Henry Jones Ford. 

The master force which impels the direct primary movement 
now sweeping over the country is desire for popular control of 
government. Only partisans and reformers would be interested 
in it if it were offered simply as a means by which a public man, 
enjoying popular favor, could beat down his party opponents. 
The idea which commends the direct primary to the masses, and 
which rallies them to the support of its advocates, is that it is a 
means of giving power to the people. I purpose in this article 
to analyze this proposition, which presents the aspect of the 
case that concerns political science. 

One continually hears the declaration that the direct pri¬ 
mary will take power from the politicians and give it to the 
people. This is pure nonsense. Politics has been, is and always 
will be carried on by politicians, just as art is carried on by 
artists, engineering by engineers, business by business men. All 
that the direct primary, or any other political reform, can do is 
to affect the character of the politicians by altering the condi¬ 
tions that govern political activity, thus determining its extent 
and quality. The direct primary may take advantage and op¬ 
portunity from one set of politicians and confer them upon an¬ 
other set, but politicians there will always be so long as there 
is politics. The only thing that is open to control is the sort of 
politicians we shall have. ... If graft flourishes in Amer¬ 
ican politics, it is due to the existence of ample provision for 
that institution in our political arrangements. Therefore, when 
any reform is proposed, we should form our judgment of its 
merits not by the pretences accompanying it, but by scrutiny 
of the conditions it will establish and by consideration of the 
sort of men it will tend to bring into power—that is to say, the 
kind of politicians it will breed. 

When the direct primary is thus tested, its true character is 
revealed. Its pretense of giving power to the people is a mock¬ 
ery. The reality is that it scrambles power among faction chiefs 
and their bands, while the people are despoiled and oppressed. 


104 


University of Kentucky 


The fact that the thing is done in the name of the people, and 
with the pretence that it is done for the people, ought not to ob¬ 
scure the patent facts of the situation. It is clear that if 
diamonds were handed out one mile up in the air only those 
having airships could actually be on hand to get them. If they 
were handed out to first comers at a distant point in the public 
highway those having automobiles would practically monopolize 
the gift-taking. If they were regularly handed out to first 
comers at designated times and places in the city only those hav¬ 
ing time, means and opportunity of being first in line would 
actually get them, no matter how T emphatically it might be an¬ 
nounced that they should be free to all. Precisely the same holds 
good when offices of valuable emolument and lucrative oppor¬ 
tunity are periodically scrambled. The hand-out may be nomi¬ 
nally free to all, but in practice it goes to those able to obtain 
positions of advantage, whether by force, fraud, cajolery or 
favor. The existence of such methods inevitably develops sys¬ 
tematic and organized means of controlling the distribution and 
appropriating its benefits. Hence we have the boss and the ma¬ 
chine, as regular institutions of American politics, permanent 
in their nature, however the personnel of their official staff may 
change from time to time under stress of competition. We are 
always pulling down bosses, because transient combinations of 
would-be bosses and reformers may develop strength enough to 
overthrow a particular boss or a particular machine. But while 
bosses and machines come and go, the boss and the machine are 
always with us. From the standpoint of the public welfare, it is 
the system that is important and not the individuals who act 
in it. 

The direct primary does not remove any of the conditions 
that have produced the system, but it intensifies their pressure 
by making politics still more confused, irresponsible and costly. 
In its full application it is the most noxious of the reforms by 
which spoilsmen are generated, for it parallels the long series 
of regular elections with a corresponding series of elections in 
every regular party organization. The more elections there are, 
the larger becomes the class of professional politicians to be 


Direct Primaries 


105 


supported b} the community. Hamilton’s law is as constant as 
any law of physics, and is indeed a corollary of the axioms of 
physics.. The evil consequences are abundantly exemplified by 
current political phenomena. Many are so subtle and so diffused 
that it is impossible to catalogue them, but some salient features 
of the situation may be noted, with specific instances. The fol¬ 
lowing are among the effects of the direct primary: 

1. Graft .—Nothing is more common than to hear it spoken 
of as an adventitious blemish upon American politics, whereas it 
is innate. It is an inevitable outcome of the system; and so long 
as the system endures, it will flourish in accordance with Hamil¬ 
ton’s law. Take the case of the people of New York City, for 
instance. The law puts upon the community the task of filling 
the following administrative and judical positions under the 
forms of popular election: State : Governor, Lieutenant Gover¬ 
nor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, 
Engineer and various judicial offices; County : Clerk, Sheriff, 
Register, District Attorney, Surrogate, Justices; City : Mayor, 
Controller, President of the Board of Aldermen. The New r York 
City budget for 1909 contains an item of $1,035,130 merely for 
the annual expense of holding these elections, and this is but 
a small part of the aggregate expense. Every candidate for a 
nomination must spend money. Campaign wmrk costs heavily. 
Then on the eve of the election comes “dough day,” when the 
party captain in each district receives money for expenditures 
in getting out the vote. Altogether the expense runs into many 
millions of dollars every year. 

Now, there is no source of wealth but the industry and re¬ 
sources of the community, and hence, in one way or another, the 
community must bear the expense of filling the offices. So when 
the system is such as to entail great expenditures, it falls heavily 
upon the community. And that is not all. In addition to sup¬ 
plying the funds for electioneering outlay, the community must 
support a vast staff of professional politicians. This is an in¬ 
fliction under which the people continually groan, but the matter 
is settled not by their likes or dislikes, but by the conditions, and 
the conditions are such as to afford vast employment for en- 


106 


University of Kentucky 


gineers and stokers in running political machines, the most mon¬ 
strous and complicated that the world has ever seen. So long 
as the system is tolerated, its incidents will have to be endured. 

In the popular magazines of late there has been much about 
the superior economy and efficiency of democraitc rule in Switz¬ 
erland, New Zealand and some other countries. Well, there is a 
reason. And the biggest reason is that their institutions are not 
subjected to the graft pressure to which American institutions 
are subject. Not one of the offices mentioned in the foregoing 
schedule of New York elections is filled by popular election in 
Canada, England, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand or in any 
other country where democratic government is genuine and not 
counterfeit nor, indeed, in any other civilized country in the 
world. Their system of responsible appointment saves the peo¬ 
ple the many millions of dollars imposed by our system of ir¬ 
responsible elections, and the advantage thus obtained in the 
way of public economy is immense. 

The direct primary necessarily intensifies graft pressure by 
multiplying elections. It proposes to parallel regular elections 
by an antecedent series of party elections to nominate candi¬ 
dates. The typical effect of the system is accurately set forth 
in the following extract from a Texas paper, the “Krebs Ban¬ 
ner : ’ ’ 

It costs a big pile of money to run for office in the new state of 
Oklahoma. This is to a very large extent blamed on the primary 
election system. The results show, it is claimed, that only wealthy 
men had any chance in the race for governor or United States senator. 
One candidate for governor is reported to have spent approximately 

$75,000 and another $50,000 in the primary election campaign. Dr.- 

of Enid, and - - of Guthrie, men of moderate means, got out 

of the race because they could not keep the financial pace set by the 
other candidates. Two or three of the leading candidates in the sena¬ 
torial race, it is said, spent from $30,000 to $100,000 in the campaign 
for the primary nomination. When it is borne in mind that the nom¬ 
inees of the Democratic primaries will have to make another thorough 
and expensive campaign to win in the “sure enough” election over the 
Republicans, it becomes evident that, if the Democrats are to win, it 
will be at a terrible cost to the leading officers. To win the governor¬ 
ship will, it is estimated, cost the successful candidates $75,000, more 





Direct Primaries 


107 


or less, to secure a job paying $4,500 a year, hardly as much as the 
Krebs Banner makes for its publisher, and much smaller honors. And 
m the case of the United States senator, it is but little better than the 
governorship, though with vastly superior opportunities for getting 
ahead of the game by grafting. 

There are all sorts of ways “for getting ahead of the game.” 
Public men are frequently subject to attack upon charges of this 
character. Even the Governor of Oklahoma, a product of the 
direct primary, has not been exempt. Opinions will differ, of 
course, as to the merits of any particular case. But it is clear 
that, when conditions are such that administrative positions can 
be obtained only by large expenditure, there will be a strong in¬ 
ducement to find ways and means of reimbursement and com¬ 
pensation. The system necessarily means graft, and in all ages 
graft has been associated with it. 

2. Irresponsibility .—The whole system of filling adminis¬ 
trative and judicial positions under the forms of popular elec¬ 
tion is a violaton of the constitutional principles upon which our 
government was founded. The fundamental principle of con¬ 
stitutional government is that responsibility shall attach to every 
act of power. Hence the Fathers attached paramount impor¬ 
tance to the principle of executive unity, which provides a 
definite location of power. The Fathers were in the habit of 
citing as a maxim of constitutional government that “the exe¬ 
cutive is most easily confined when it is one.” In pursuance 
of this principle, the Constitution of the United States provides 
that “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the 
United States of America.” The power which any federal at¬ 
torney, marshal, commissioner, collector, postmaster' or other 
federal agent exercises is delegated by the President, and may 
be revoked by the President in his discretion, so that when pub¬ 
lic opinion acts upon the Presidential office it acts upon the 
whole administration. Political force flows full and strong in 
one effective channel. Under the system existing in our states, 
this force is dissipated among many channels, producing the 
morass in which we continually flounder in our state politics. 
Responsibility is too vague, diffused and uncertain to be ef- 


108 


University of Kentucky 


fectual. Power is not definitely located anywhere. Just such 
consequences of the violation of the .principle of executive unity 
were predicted by the Fathers. In “The Federalist,” No. 63, 
written either by Hamilton or Madison, it is pointed out that, 
paradoxical as it may seem, there may be a want of “due re¬ 
sponsibility in the government to the people arising from that 
frequency of elections which in other cases produces this re¬ 
sponsibility. ’ ’ 

If we turn to private business for an illlustration this para¬ 
dox will become intelligible. Suppose the shareholders of a 
bank should themselves elect its president, its cashier, its sec¬ 
retary, its auditor, its head bookkeeper, its janitor, and in addi¬ 
tion a board of directors to pass its by-laws. Suppose that then, 
in addition, the shareholders in each district of its business field 
should elect its principal agents likewise as independent author¬ 
ities. Would any responsibility for business results be left any¬ 
where by this multiplicity of elections? Well, that is the kind 
of situation which is produced in the public business by the elec¬ 
toral arrangements peculiar to the American state. Responsible 
government is destroyed. 

In this situation, by a prodigy of political talent, a sys¬ 
tem of party responsibility has been evolved. It is a poor sub¬ 
stitute for representative government, for it is unconstituional 
in its structure and oligarchic in its authority. It secures its 
revenues by processes of extortion, justified by custom in con¬ 
sideration of its necessities. Corporations serve as its toll-takers, 
turning over to it large sums and receiving legislative favor and 
official protection in return. They act in this capacity willy-nilly, 
for the conditions are such that they must feed the brute or his 
teeth raid claws will be on them. Notice what a ferocious on¬ 
slaught was made on the railroad corporations all over the 
country when they cut off the supply of free passes to the poli¬ 
ticians under the compulsion of the Federal law. So those charged 
with large trusteeship, having interests closely intermingled with 
public interests, find it necessary to spend money for political 
power and influence. 


Direct Primaries 


109 


A president of the American Sugar Refining Company, in 
testifying before a Committee of the United States Senate, 
blurted out the naked truth about the system. He said: “It is 
my impression that wherever there is a dominant party, wherever 
the majority is large, that is the party that gets the contribu¬ 
tion, because that is the party which controls the local matters.” 
He explained that such contribution was made because the com¬ 
pany had large interests to protect, and he added: “Every in¬ 
dividual and corporation and firm, trust, or whatever you call 
it, does these things and we do them” (Senate Report, No. 608, 
Fifty-third Congress, second session, pp. 351, 352). 

This virtual taxing power, conceded by custom to party 
organization, rests upon an unconstitutional control which is a 
product of conditions imposed upon the community by reform¬ 
ers. Those conditions have determined the characteristics and 
shaped the activities of the politicians. The class interests of the 
politicians are ordered and graduated in a way that suggests 
the feudal system and, indeed, is its homologue both in its origin 
and in its nature. It is a system of personal connection founded 
on reciprocal duty and service, with its own peculiar code of 
ethics, stringently enforced. It introduces a principle of re¬ 
sponsibility that is gross and imperfect, but is nevertheless gen¬ 
uine. Party organization has a corporate interest that may be 
reached and acted upon by public opinion, and be held to some 
responsibility for results. Party government in America is, in 
fact, a broad bottomed oligarchy whose administration is costly, 
negligent and incapable, but which at least sets up barriers 
against the anarchy and terrorism that always in the past have 
been the outcome of ochlocratic methods. In Greece, Rome and 
mediaeval Italy the distribution of authority among independent 
authorities, by means of popular elections, made the state the 
scene of frequent civil wars. Apart from the United States, the 
only modern country which tried that system was revolutionary 
France. The scheme of local government devised by the Con¬ 
stituent Assembly and promulgated by the decree of December 
14th, 1789, was based upon the principles of the direct primary 
and the recall asserted with logical completeness. All adminis- 


110 


University of Kentucky 


trative officials were chosen by the citizens meeting in primary 
assemblies, and these might reassemble to recall and replace ob¬ 
noxious officials. Special precautions were taken, so far as stat¬ 
ute law can go, to make these provisions practically effective. 
The faction fighting that ensued soon brought about the state 
of things known in history as The Terror. In the present French 
Republic, elections are absolutely confined to the choice of rep¬ 
resentatives. America is the only country that has even been 
able to maintain tolerable conditions of public order when au¬ 
thority is split up and scattered among factions. This unicpie 
achievement stands to the credit of American politicians, and 
the fact is recognized by philosophical observers. Bagehot in 
his classic treatise on the English Constitution says that, if 
Americans ‘ ‘ had not a genius for politics, if they had not a mod¬ 
eration in action singularly curious where a superficial speech 
is so violent, if they had not a regard for laws such as no great 
people have yet evinced and infinitely surpassing ours—the 
multiplicity of authorities in the American constitution would 
long ago have brought it to a bad end. ’ ’ 

Our political class is inordinately numerous and inordinately 
expensive; but the only effectual way of curtailing their num¬ 
ber and diminishing the burden of their support is to have less 
for them to do. Elections should be reduced in number. The 
direct primary proposes to give the politicians more to do. It 
provides for a series of elections in advance of the present series. 
And, at the same time, it strikes down party responsibility by 
providing that party agents shall no longer hold their posts by 
efficiency, as now, but by faction favor. The practical effect will 
be to substitute for existing boss rule a far more corrupt, de¬ 
graded and impervious sort of boss rule. The change will be 
analogous to that which took place in the mediaeval Italian re¬ 
publics, when local oligarchies were succeeded by professional 
condottieri, heedless of aught save their own gains. 

A transformation of this order through the direct primary 
is noted by the Commission that recently reported a new chartei 
for Boston. The Commission in its report on existing conditions 
says: 





Direct Primaries 


111 


The direct primary system was no doubt intended to abolish 
partisanship in municipal government, but in its practical working 
there is no longer the partisanship of a great organization bound 
theoretically by party principles and having some regard for its poli¬ 
tical responsibility in the state at large. It is a partisanship of ward 
organizations, calling themselves Republican or Democratic, as the 
case may be, but representing no municipal politices capable of formu¬ 
lation ... It has made it artifically diffcult to secure good nomi¬ 
nations; it has debarred the best and most representative citizens from 
participation in the government; it has increased the power of money 
in elections; it has practically handed the city over to the ward poli¬ 
ticians. It tends to create bad government, no matter how strongly 
the people may desire good government, and to discredit the capacity 
of the people when congregated together in great cities to administer 
their municipal affairs. 

That is the characteristic tendency of the direct primary 
everywhere. If the people do everything themselves, then they 
have only themselves to blame when things go wrong. In prac¬ 
tice, government constituted on such principles means the ir¬ 
responsible rule of faction. Outrages may be perpetrated for 
which no party organization would dare to assume responsibility. 
The case is illustrated by certain facts given by Judge Ben B. 
Lindsay, of Denver, in a pamphlet entitled “The Rule of 
Plutocracy in Colorado.” On the principle that the people 
should do everything themselves, the grant of a franchise to a 
street railway company was submitted to the direct vote of the 
people. Judge Lindsay charges that the proposition as sub¬ 
mitted was shaped in the interest of the railway company, and 
he says that “no more arrogant and outrageous lawlessness in 
stealing the property of others was ever enacted.” Influential 
politicians of all parties and public officials were employed by 
the corporation to carry the proposition at the polls. Judge 
Lindsay says that the market value of the company’s securities 
was increased $5,000,000 as the result of the election, so that as 
a business proposition the company stood to win largely even if 
it took millions to carry the election. Indeed, he estimates that 
the perpetual franchise the company aimed to seem e v ould lie 
cheap at $500,000,000.” He denounces the behavior of the poli¬ 
ticians and public officials who took fees from the company to 


112 


University of Kentucky 


work in its interest as treachery to the people. But what legal 
offense did they commit, so long as they did not practise bribery 'I 
The responsibility did not rest with them, but with the people. 
They were employed as advocates—an entirely legitimate 
occupation. That the transaction was one of public debauchery, 
as he claims, may be admitted, but the debauchery inheres in the 
system. The hired advocates did what, on the principle of the 
direct primary, they had a perfect right to do. Judge Lindsay 
makes a detailed contrast between the terms obtained under this 
system and the terms obtained by Toronto in providing street 
railway service. There the public treasury receives a percentage 
of the gross income of the railway company, on a rising scale 
from eight per cent up to twenty per cent when the income 
reaches three million dollars. In addition, the stipulations of 
the contract require the company to sell tickets at the rate of 
eight tickets for twenty-five cents during morning and evening 
hours and twelve for twenty-five cents for school children. Judge 
Lindsay points to this as an example of what might and should 
be done, but he fails to draw the moral that to get Toronto re¬ 
sults American cities should resort to Toronto means. Well, in 
Toronto there is- no direct primary, no initiative and refer¬ 
endum, and no elections to fill administrative or judicial posts; 
but there is responsibile government. Nothing is further from 
the truth than to describe the direct primary as a democratic in¬ 
stitution. It is the negation of democratic rule, and nothing of 
the sort is found where democratic government really exists. 

Plutocracy —The rule of bosses and party machines, while 
a poor substitute for democratic government, is better than any 
other substitute available in the conditions to which American 
politics has been subjected. It is at least an integrating force 
and makes towards responsible government. The bosses corre¬ 
spond to “the undertakers,” who are described by Lecky in his 
“History of England in the Eighteenth Century” as an oli¬ 
garchy founded upon personal connection and “dexterity in 
party management.” He observes that “this oligarchical con¬ 
nection was unpopular with the people on account of its nar 
rowness and corruption,” but he remarks that its overthrow re- 


Direct Primaries 


113 


suited in more corruption than its ascendancy, and he holds that 
its influence in “binding many isolated and individual interests 
into a coherent and powerful organization was a real step to¬ 
wards parliamentary government.” Since boss rule represents 
power founded on organized personal connection, it may admit 
poor men to its sphere and may select poor men for its candidates. 
Thus it has frequently occurred that poor men of ability have 
been raised to high office by dint of personal ability, and party 
interest is thus made subservient to public interests. The case 
of Abraham Lincoln is typical. But when power is conditioned 
upon ability to finance costly electioneering campaigns, pluto¬ 
cratic rule is established. One of the maxims of the Fathers was 
that power must exist and be trusted somewhere. Responsible 
government exactly defines the somewhere, but that crown of 
representative institutions has yet to be attained in the United 
States. As the late Speaker Reed frankly declared: “We have 
at present irresponsible government, so divided that nobody can 
tell who is to blame. ’ ’ In this situation party organization per¬ 
forms a great service, because it roughly locates power some¬ 
where, thus assuming a vague but real responsibility for the 
behavior of government. The direct primary impairs this re¬ 
sponsibility by making power the football of faction. Power 
will rest somewhere just the same, but few will know where, so 
that it will be released from any responsibility for results. The 
behavior of legislative bodies will be peculiarly exposed to ir¬ 
responsible influence. It is already plain that the direct primary 
affords means of setting up secret control. The investigation of 
the last senatorial election in Wisconsin showed that various 
members of the legislature were employed as electioneering 
agents. A wealthy candidate, as an incident of his canvass, 
could get a legislature deeply under his influence by pecuniary 
favors. This would be a development quite in accord with his- 
torical precedent. The magnate and his clients were a familiar 
political factor in the government of the Roman commonwealth 
when it was conducted on the lines that are now imitated in the 
American state. 


114 


University of Kentucky 


Ochlocracy. —Historically, plutocracy and ochlocracy—the 
money power and the government of the mob—always appear 
together. It is a favorite theory of reformers that, if there were 
no organized control, the people would select their wisest and 
best for public office. This is mere sentimental cant. Favor 
decides choice wdien selection is not accompanied by direct and 
immediate risk of consequences. On May 7th, 1903, Governor 
Pennypacker vetoed a bill for popular election of mine inspectors. 
He said: 

Their selection is to be made by the people at an election. The 
majority of the people, however, have no technical knowledge of mines 
and are engaged to other pursuits. The selection would be likely to 
be made upon other considerations than those of the technical capacity 
of the miners. They would in all probability be determined by associa¬ 
tion, by political relations and by all those influences which affect the 
ordinary voter. To state the proposition is enough in itself to show 
that this would not be likely to result in securing competent mine in¬ 
spectors. No one would think of determining the selection of a phy¬ 
sician or an engineer to run a railroad train, or the occupant of any 
other station requiring technical information by a popular vote at an 
election. In fact the selection of mine inspectors would seem properly 
to belong to the Executive Department of the government. 

In the last New York state campaign, Governor Hughes, on 
similar grounds, opposed the appointment of members of the 
Public Service Commission by popular election. He said: “In 
theory commissioners might be elected, but in practice they 
would really be appointed by irresponsible men.” These sensi¬ 
ble comments are just as applicable to any other administrative 
function. 

At the direct primary in Altanta, Georgia, in June, 1908, 
the contest for the nomination to the office of coroner was be¬ 
tween a blind musician and a one-armed Confedearte veteran. 
The issue seemed to be whether blindness or lameness establislid 
the stronger claim to popular favor. The blind man won. In an 
interview published in the “Atlanta Journal,” he explained 
that he sought the office because he needed the money. “It has 
always been my ambition,’’ he said, “to go to Munich and com- 



Direct Primaries 


115 


plete my studies in music. That, of course, takes money, and the 
surest and fastest way of making the necessary money, as I see 
it, is through the coronor’s job.” 

The system, of course, means that if the public business is 
attended to, the people have to support one class of officials to 
do the work and still another class to attend to the electioneering. 
Some queer mix-ups occur in the differentiation of these func¬ 
tions. The “Memphis Commercial Appeal," on November 18th, 
1908, reports an instructive development. A Grand Jury of 
Shelby county, Tennessee, complained to the court that no in¬ 
dictments were forthcoming on presentments made. The follow¬ 
ing facts were disclosed: It had been the practice for a deputy 
sheriff to frame the indictments. During the campaign the can¬ 
didate for sheriff was so aggrieved by remarks made by the suc¬ 
cessful candidate for attorney general that he would not allow 
the deputy sheriff to prepare indictments until an acceptable 
apology was made. The “Commercial Appeal’s” account of the 
affair concludes as follows: 

Sheriff-said that he was perfectly willing for Mr. -to write 

indictments, and that at any time the demand he had made was com¬ 
plied with by Gen. - the grand jury work would be restored to its 

former status. 

Gen. - says that he and his assistants will write the indict¬ 

ments, and that arrangements will soon be made by which the grand 
jurors will have all the work they can attend to on each meeting day. 
The work is yet new to the attorney general and both assistants, but 
they declare that they will master it in a short while. 

The sort of influence which the direct primary exerts on 
the administration of justice is illustrated by this extract from 
the “Kansas City Times” of August 5th, 1908: 

Carthage, Missouri, August 4.—Carthage is at a standstill in the 

-murder mystery. Although at least two plausible theories of the 

affair have been entertained by the authorities, there has not been 
an arrest yet. The primary elections have diverted the attention of the 

officers from murder to politics. While the murderer of Dr. - goes 

unapprehended, Carthage plays politics. Sheriff-- and - 

-, the constable, who have been working on the case, have suspended 

operations until after the primaries. 












116 


University of Kentucky 


Space will not admit of further details, of which I have a 
copious supply drawn from actual experience. Mention, how¬ 
ever, should not be omitted of one feature of the system, and 
that is the way in which it oppresses the poor. The recent in¬ 
vestigation of social conditions known as “The Pittsburgh Sur¬ 
vey” directs attention to the large sums obtained by elective 
justices and constables by petty prosecution. The men who se¬ 
cure these offices are usually chiefs of local political gangs, 
whose influence is aggrandized by the direct primary system. 
Candidates for high office solicit their support and pool inter¬ 
ests with them. The poor are helpless against such combina¬ 
tions, and their only chance of tolerable security is to commend 
themselves to boss protection by political service as in the feudal 
period. In the sequence of cause and effect there may be at one 
end the well meaning reformer and at the other end the poor 
ground down by a system thej 7 can neither comprehend nor with¬ 
stand. I have yet to find an instance in which the direct primary 
has actually tended to promote good government, and it is only 
by some dire confusion of thought that good men can advocate 
such a pernicious nostrum. 

Outlook. 97: 426-33. February 25, 1911. 

Every Man Ilis Own Campaign Manager. Emily Newell Blair. 

In Missouri, where we have a primary election law, primary 
elections are held at the regular polling places in each precinct 
on the first Tuesday in August for the nomination of all candi¬ 
dates to be voted for at the next November election. At least 
sixty days before the primary each candidate for a county office 
fdes a declaration of such candidacy with the County Clerk and 
pays to the Chairman of his County Committee $5. Candidates 
for state offices, Congress, and Circuit Judge file such declara¬ 
tion with the Secretary of State, paying respectively $100, $50, 
and $25 to the chairman of their respective state committees. 
This money is paid as an evidence of good faith, and goes to ihe 
party campaign fund, the expenses of the primary election 
(judges, clerks, etc.) being paid by the state and county as at 


Direct Primaries 


117 


general elections. For three weeks preceding the primary the 
names of the candidates on each ticket are printed in two news¬ 
papers in the county, one Republican, the other Democratic. 

There are as many separate tickets as there are parties en¬ 
titled to participate in the primary, the names of the candidates 
being in alphabetical order under the appropriate title of the 
respective offices and under proper party designation upon the 
party ticket. In cities of over one hundred thousand inhabitants 
the names of candidates are alternated on the ballots, so that 
each name appears thereon substantially an equal number of 
times at the top, at the bottom, and at each intermediate place. 
Each voter receives only the ticket of the party to which he de¬ 
clares himself to belong. The law requires that each voter must 
be known to affiliate with the party named at the head of the 
ticket he calls for, or must obligate himself to support the nomi¬ 
nees of that party at the following campaign. This provision 
presents difficulties of practical enforcement which are obvious, 
the ballot being secret. No person who is a candidate upon one 
ticket can be voted for as a candidate for such office upon any 
other party ticket. Such, in brief, is the law. 

The primary system was tried out in Missouri for the first 
time over two years ago. In 1908 it was so new that office- 
seekers had not discovered its possibilities or how to utilize them, 
confining their efforts at pubilicity to a modest card or portrait. 
Then one candidate scornfully refused the suggestion that he 
take a small space in the country newspapers setting forth his 
qualifications; last year all the available advertising space (sev¬ 
eral newspapers issuing supplements) was taken by Would Be s, 
the advertisements ranging from a whole page of double capitals 
reciting the merits of a Congressional candidate, auclion-wise, 
to a small two-line “local” of an impecunious aspirant for the 
office of Justice of the Peace. 

But cards and newspapers are not the only means used by 
candidates to introduce their abilities, advantages and avail¬ 
ability. 7 ’ Between changes of films at the numerous moving 
picture shows likenesses of various candidates are thiov n upon 



118 


University of Kentucky 


the screen. Letters of all kinds, from the purely personal to 
the circular, are sent to the voters, while handbills and posters 
and portraits are posted at every crossroads. 

The county in which I have studied the phenomena is in 
the rich mining region of the state, and contains about eighteen 
thousand voters. Of these less than half are farmers, the re¬ 
mainder miners, merchants, clerks, etc., except for the six or 
eight hundred negroes whose purchasable vote notoriously con¬ 
trols results in certain precincts. There are three large towns, 
one of twelve thousand, one of fifteen thousand, and one of 
thirty-five thousand, and fifteen small mining camps and farm¬ 
ing villages. The would-be-nominee must make himself, his 
ambitions and abilities, known to all these voters during the two 
months between the filing of intention (June 2) and the date of 
the primaries (August 2). According to the old convention sys¬ 
tem, he had at the utmost six hundred delegates to see or con¬ 
vince ; now he must win the support of from four thousand to 
five thousand, the two parties, Democratic and Republican, be¬ 
ing nearly evenly divided in number in the county’s eighteen 
thousand votes. This means expense, work, and time. The first 
thing sought is publicity. This is secured by cards, placards, 
posters, lithographs, and newspapers; then personal appeal is 
tried. The first is easy compared to the second. Naturally, the 
candidate begins with his friends; he approaches in person all 
he can, and writes to those in outlying districts, soliciting their 
support, and asking them to say a word to their friends in his 
behalf. That much accomplished, he commences a man-to-man 
canvass, day and night, in street cars, on street corners, in offices, 
lodge meetings, public picnics, churches, along country roads, in 
factories, mills and mines—wherever one or two are gathered to¬ 
gether. 

An auto, a box of cigars, a winning smile, and a pack of 
cards—candidate cards—are his paraphernalia, and the number 
of these required for eighteen thousand voters demands a rather 
large bank account, as do his stamps, printing, stenographer, 
and the workers who circulate through the county advocating 
his candidacy and reporting daily the public pulse. 


i 




Direct Primaries 


119 


This county offers two varieties of candidates: well-to-do 
men who “like politics” and are willing to invest one to three 
thousand dollars to secure an eight-thousand-dollar office and 
the prestige that goes with it; and those with enough gambling 

spirit to risk what they can scrape up or borrow on the chance of 
winning. 

This year a new kind entered the race. These were the 
faithful clerks who, with no political pull, have been doing the 
actual work of the county offices for ten or twelve years at sal¬ 
aries ranging from eighty to one hundred dollars per month, 
while the elected official worked at politics, or had a good time 
generally. In five offices such candidates announced themselves 
as entitled to the office and the whole salary. Yet they must win 
—if win they should—by the same system the others use; that of 
appeal, begging, and money-spending. 

The majority of the candidates might be termed professional 
office-seekers. Rarely an election passes by that these men do 
not aspire to some one or other of the county offices. It seems 
a chance to get something for nothing (a big mistake, they find 
later) ; the salary sounds large for this locality; the work when 
elected is nil. “Spoiled by office” has become a proverb, for, 
having once held public office and enjoyed a lucrative salary for 
no labor rendered, an occupation requiring real mental or phy¬ 
sical effort becomes abhorrent. 

One man on last year \s primary ticket had been a succesful 
traveling man, with some money laid by. Once he was elected to 
a county office, and since that time he has been a perennial candi¬ 
date. Another was a prosperous farmer; after serving one term 
in a county office he tried the mercantile business and failed, 
then a brokerage business and failed; last year he was a candi¬ 
date for another office. Another—But why multiply illustra¬ 
tions? Of the sixty-seven candidates asking nomination at the 
primaries, forty-seven had held office or been candidates before. 
Whether the fascination of the game lures them on, or the in¬ 
gratiating, harmless manner they assume will not wear off, and 
hence unfits them for the aggressive walks of trade, is an open 


120 


University of Kentucky 


question. The fact remains that holding county office so af¬ 
fects previously successful men. 

So much for the effect on the candidates. How does this 
‘ 1 solicitation of your support/’ “desire your kind efforts in my 
behalf/’ “hope you can do something for me,” affect the voter? 

There were eleven county offices for which candidates were 
to he nominated at lasts year’s primaries, and there were forty- 
two Republican candidates and twenty-one Democratic candi¬ 
dates. This means that each individual voter was solicited from 
thirty to fifty times by letter, word of mouth (more frequently 
by both), and by friends and hired workers of the various candi¬ 
dates, as well. A busy merchant intent oh selling to a customer, 
a doctor engaged in his practice, a farmer getting in his crops, 
is stopped on the street, detained in his store or office, or way¬ 
laid in his field to discuss a man’s—a stranger’s—private ambi¬ 
tion to increase his income at the taxpayer’s expense. 

My neighbor, a deaf old man, sat on my neighbor’s porch 
the other night. 

“Ain’t you sick of these office-seekers?” I heard the deaf 
man say. 

“Sick? I’m clean disgusted,” the railway conductor an¬ 
swered. ‘ ‘ I ain’t had any peace this summer. ’ ’ 

At our boarding house table the men were discussing the 
same subject the morning of the primary. 

“What do you say when a candidate asks you to support 
him?” a young voter queried. “You can’t say, ‘No, I’m for 
the other fellow, because I like him better.’ If he lives next 
door, or has married your sister, you have some excuse, but I’ll 
be darned if I know what to say. ’ ’ 

‘ ‘ I tell them, ’ ’ spoke up a genial man, ‘ ‘ ‘ Oh, I’m for you. ’ 
It pleases them and don’t mean anything—I’m for them, but 
I vote where I please.” 

“Well,” said a serious man, “I’m getting to the point where 
I don’t vote for any man who asks me to. It’s an insult to his 
manhood to come begging for my vote, and it’s an insult to the 
privacy of my opinion to be asked my personal choice. I’ll pro¬ 
claim my principles, but not always my taste.” 


Direct Primaries 


121 


let/’ replied the genial man, “I’ve heard men say that 
they would not vote for a certain candidate because he hadn’t 
asked them. They wanted him to beg. It made them feel im¬ 
portant. ” 

I think it is ruination to man’s self-respect to run for an 
office that does not involve a principle. There isn’t a candidate 
running that hasn’t a Uriah Heep manner that turns my stom¬ 
ach. I’ve more respect for a downright thief any day than a 
beggar, and what’s the difference between begging for an office 
and for money ? ’ ’ 

There you have the voter’s attitude. He resents the attack 
on the privacy of his opinion; he resents having to be rude or 
tell a lie; but he will tell a lie if he has to. An old lady of my 
acquaintance used to say: “When people ask me an impertinent 
question, I say, H don’t know.’ It is either say that or 'None 
of your business,’ and I perfer to lie rather than be rude. I’d 
rather be damned hereafter than now.” 

Frequently voters at a primary, in their anxiety to see some 
friend of the other party get a nomination, vote the other party 
ticket. Sometimes this is done to nominate the weaker man on 
the opposing ticket, so that he may be more easily beaten at the 
ensuing election by a favorite on the voter’s party ticket. While, 
as has been said, the law prohibits this, there is no way of en¬ 
forcing it without swearing every elector as he comes to the polls. 
This the judges of election seem not to care to do. 

Last year the ticket called for by the Republican voter had 
two candidates for Congress, one a “stand-patter” and the 
other an Insurgent, so a principle was there involved; but, pass¬ 
ing on to the judgeship, the voter again found two candidates. 
He wished to vote for the more capable and honest man. Per¬ 
haps he asked some other lawyer, or perhaps he knew the two 
candidates personally. At any rate, the cards handed to him 
read just as if his choice should be a matter of political precedent 
or of the candidate’s personal needs—not a matter of public ben¬ 
efit. One candidate asked the nomination because “Republican 


122 


University of Kentucky 


precedent demands that a short term be followed by a second,” 
and the other because he “ wants the office and his children want 
the salary.” 

The voter goes on down his ticket. State Senator and Rep¬ 
resentative involve a principle, as there is a United States Sen¬ 
ator to be elected; Presiding Judge of County Court, Associate 
Judge, Probate Judge, Clerk of County Court, County Collector, 
Recorder of Deeds, Prosecuting Attorney, Justice of the Peace, 
Constable. Many of these are clerkships, pure and simple. If 
the voter has taken the time, he may be able to pick out the three 
or four really competent clerks who are candidates; if not, he 
make a choice in accordance with the recommendation of some 
friend, and helps his friend’s friend to make a lucky grab at the 
public purse. Has he served his country or the public interests 
by his vote? 

Against the primary system, then, it is urged: 

1. Out of the eleven contested nominations, not one but went to 
the man spending the most money. The amount spent varies. A Con¬ 
gressional nominee in Pennsylvania published his expense account as 
$41,000, the larger part of which went for “educational” purposes. In 
the county I have described it is estimated that the candidates spent 
from $50Q to $3,000; and a nomination here on either ticket is far 
from equivalent to an election. 

2. The long continued campaigning and soliciting of voters—from 
June 1 to election day in November. 

3. The large majority of candidates nominated are machine men. 
As less than fifty per cent of those entitled to do so voted, the Boss’s 
henchmen, as under the convention system, controlled matters, though 
a few free lances slid in. 

4. The bitter contests for nomination result too frequently in the 
defeated candidate for nomination and his friends bolting the party 
nominee. 

5. The geographical location of candidates is important in making 
up a county ticket. This cannot be provided for under the primary 
system, hence all the candidates may come from one town or vicinity, 
at the cost of enthusiasm for a local candidate in other precincts. 

6. The nominees, when selected, are not better qualified or better 
citizens than those selected under the convention system. Almost of 
necessity they are under more obligations to a great number of people. 


Direct Primaries 123 

Is the primary system, so far as county offices are concerned, 
a failure? 

I asked one candidate his experience and opinion of the sys¬ 
tem. He said: “I thought 1 took an interest in politics because 
I always voted and read what the newspapers said; hut that’s 
a small part of being interested, I’ve found. I am opposed to 
bosses, and always have been, and I concluded to run for Treas¬ 
urer. It pays, about eight thousand dollars a year. I thought 
that under the primary system I would have as good a chance 
as any one to get the nomination, as I have lived in the county 
twenty years and knew so many people, and it wouldn’t cost 
much, anyway. I certainly would be considered qualified (he is 
an expert accountant). I announced my candidacy and had 
several thousands cards and placards printed, and interviewed 
the newspapers and got a ‘ write-up ’ in each one, at cost of from 
ten to twenty-five dollars per write-up. My opponent did the 
same, and began a very active campaign over the county in an 
automobile. I was started then, and didn’t like to quit, so I 
rented an automobile and went out campaigning. I saw ninety 
per cent of the voters—less than fifty per cent voted at the pri¬ 
maries. I found there was no party organization to help a candi¬ 
date for nomination, though the Boss’s opinion as to who should 
be nominated cut a large figure—I didn’t understand exactly 
why. I found I had to have a personal representative in each 
voting precinct—two or three in some—and set about securing 
them. I was greatly surprised to find that practically every 
one of the men who know the voters individually, have some in¬ 
fluence with them, and are at the polls each election day whoop¬ 
ing it up for some particular persons, are not only machine men, 
but expect and receive pay for their services. And they are 
absolutely necessary to success; they shape the sentiment of their 
community towards a candidate, and the voters of the precinct 
know them as active party men and look to them for informa¬ 
tion. I was in the race, and meant to win; so I got two men in 
each of the seventy-two precincts to work for me. So each pre¬ 
cinct cost me from ten to twenty-five dollars for election day 
work alone. Now that I’ve got the nomination I find our County 


124 


University of Kentucky 


Committee is hopelessly split and wholly useless because of so 
much ‘soreness’ over candidates defeated for nomination, so I’ve 
got to continue my personal machine until election—three months 
—and increase it by adding the workers that were for my op¬ 
ponent. I’ve got a month’s work to do to get my own party in 
line for me, and I ought to have that time to work on Repub¬ 
licans, for I’ve got to have a lot of Republican votes and all my 
own party’s votes in order to win. It looks like I’ll have to join 
forces with C—(the Boss), who controls a number of the other 
candidates, and try to get some sort of a working organization 
outside the County Committee; otherwise there’s no chance for 
any of us. I’m out about three thousand dollars now, and the 
real fight hasn’t commenced. This primary business sounds nice, 
but the old convention system beats it. There we’d have had the 
nominations over in a day, and no time for the voters to get 
worked up in favor of some certain candidate and sore at his de¬ 
feat. ’ ’ 

“But,” I said, “you acknowledge you have become a ma¬ 
chine politician, so perhaps you are prejudiced.” 

“Every one in this county will tell you the same thing,” he 
retorted. 

“Perhaps so,” I answered; “but there aren’t any reformers 
in this county—just office-seekers.” 

“I guess you’re right there,” he agreed; “we’re not re¬ 
formers. ’ ’ 

“If a born leader like Roosevelt or Garfield or La Follette 
wanted to fight a machine for a principle, he could succeed easier 
than under the convention system, couldn’t he V ’ I asked. 

“Sure thing. The primary would render a boss helpless 
against a Roosevelt,” 

That, of course, is the prime point in favor of the primary. 
But must we have this advantage at the expense of county 
politics ? For the primary has debauched county politics into 
personal politics. It simply has turned the political machine, 
which had some use as a preserver of party organization, into a 
personal machine to graft off the county and the boss into a dis- 
burser of offices, without regard to party. 


Direct Primaries 


125 


If the primary makes plain to thinking people the character 
of county politics, if it discloses what county office-seeking really 
is an effort to work the public for a living—and points the way 
to correct the situation; ii it does all this, in addition to offering 
an opportunity for real leaders to come before the people when 
there is a real issue, we will call it a success. But certainly office 
seekers with no issue and machine bosses will never approve it. 

Gov. George W. Clarke of Iowa. Message to the Legislature, 

January 9 , 1917 . 

The nomination of candidates for public office in this state 
by a primary election lias been in vogue for a period of ten years 
—a long enough time to give its efficiency and adaptability to 
the purposes designed by its advocates a reasonable test. Re¬ 
sults from the beginning have not been entirely satisfactory. 
Changes from time to time have been made in the hope of making 
it an approved instrument of popular government. No improve¬ 
ment has been perceived. It seems to have been continually los¬ 
ing ground in the minds of thoughtful men sincerely interested 
in good government. To test the public mind of the state on the 
subject I some weeks ago sent out quite a large number of letters 
to men of all parties and former factions asking whether they 
were satisfied with the law, not simply in theory, but in its prac¬ 
tical application, and if not, why, and whether they would 
recommend a change, and if so in what particulars. Almost all 
responded and not one said he was entirely satisfied. All but two 
or three expressed thorough dissatisfaction and disappointment. 
Nearly all recommended very radical changes, many denounced 
it as subversive of representative government and favored its re¬ 
peal. Many of those who were its staunchest advocates in the 
beginning and who were in considerable measure responsible for 
its enactment were as severe in their criticism of results as many 
of those who never regarded it with favor. 

As to the further practical operation of the primary laws 
it may be said that nohody is responsible for results. Nobody 
nominates candidates for public office. They select themselves. 
The question of fitness is not discussed and passed upon by any- 


126 


University of Kentucky 


body. They are found in the field. Multiplied thousands of 
voters know nothing about their qualifications and do not and 
cannot take the time to investigate. If they could, to whom 
could they go? To everybody only. And everybody is nobody. 
The voter simply ratifies the candidate’s selection of himself. He 
has nothing to do with selecting the agents of his government. 
The most intelligent voter does not know how to mark his. ballot 
below the head of the ticket. It is manifest) that it would be 
better if candidates were selected by representatives chosen by 
the people in small units of government. Then there could be 
some canvass as to fitness. Then responsibility could be located. 
Then the people would indeed select their candidates. That would 
be democratic. It is not democratic where the voter expresses no 
opinion as to nearly the whole of the ticket he casts. He makes 
no selection. He votes blindly. He simply makes a thrust in the 
dark. Why insist that he wait until he is twenty-one years of 
age before he does this? He could do it as well at fourteen. Or 
why insist that the voter be a male? A sixteen-year-old girl 
could make a stab at the field with just as much certainty of im¬ 
paling the best man. That it is mostly a chance, a lottery, was 
humiliatingly admitted when the legislature ordered a rotation 
of the names on the ballot. That it could be nothing else was 
conclusively demonstrated when no better results followed. 
There could not possibly be a greater delusion than that a re¬ 
peal of the primary laws would deprive the people of their power 
of direct participation in their government. The fact is that the 
primary prevents that very thing. The people cannot proceed 
with the greatest efficiency, precision and intelligence by multi¬ 
tudes. All experience establishes with unshakable certainty this 
fact, not only in government but in business and every other de¬ 
partment of life where large issues are involved. This prinei- 
ciple is recognized and acted upon everywhere else but in govern¬ 
ment where it ought to obtain with greatest force. 

The primary tends to exclude the best, most unselfish and 
capable men. The rule is that they will not undergo the methods 
which seem necessary to success. The meaningless circulation 
of petitions, the harassing and long-drawn out primary campaign 


Direct Primaries 


127 


within the party, tending to disrupt and weaken the party, a 
great evil where government must proceed by parties, the 
enormous and disgraceful expenditure of money, all tending to 
corrupt public morals, lower and contaminate the political and 
public ideals of youth—all this with reference to the questions 
that must touch every citizen, really the most momentous ques¬ 
tions with which he has to do. Then must follow the campaign 
for the general election with all of the convulsions and disap¬ 
pointment and bitterness of the primary campaign carried over 
into it. The tendency of it all is to develop the demagogue, lower 
to debasement the tone of our political life, deprive the country 
of great leadership, inspired only by a desire for the common 
good, for a commonwealth that shall he an example and attract 
the admiration of the whole country—a leadership that is not 
based upon and which would scorn to appeal to the prejudices 
and want of vision of men, but which is on fire, with the great 
things of life which develop great citizenship and build states 
upon enduring foundations. 

The tendency of our present system is to grow worse. Such 
has been the result. A new movement having the approval of 
great numbers brings with it a pride in its success which seems 
to start it well, but its inherent weakness is sure to develop. 
Hence it has come about that in more states than one, dead men 
have been voted for as candidates. In other instances men of 
notorious weakness in character and mind have polled thousands 
of votes for important state offices, putting the public service in 
actual peril—indeed there is a constant peril. Besides, it lias 
been demonstrated that the less intelligent voters, those whose 
personal prejudices are most easily aroused, vote with the great¬ 
est unanimity. Thus an anlysis of a primary vote in Michigan 
reveals the fact that “in the seven counties containing the most 
foreign born and illiterate voters the Republican vote has been 
far above the percentage for the state, in the last three primaries 
exceeding the party membership, while in the seven counties con¬ 
taining the least such vote the percentage has been considerably 
below that for the state. In Detroit the vote in the four wards 
conceded to be the ‘worst’ has always been markedly heavier than 


128 


University of Kentucky 


in the best wards and in 1914 the Republican vote in the worst 
wards was over twice the party membership. The voting is 
quantitatively best where the electorate appears to be qualita¬ 
tively worst.” I think this would be found to be generally true 
under the primary system. 

The non-partisan judiciary law, as it stands, has also demon¬ 
strated its utter futility to effect its purpose. It has moved the 
judiciary into politics. It invites into a political game that has 
not one thing to commend it, but everything to condemn it. It 
starts the candidate for the office of judge out as a suppliant. 
He must appeal to people whom he may soon have before him as 
litigants and who have extended the helpful influence. If he 
rises into the region where the recollection of favors do not abide, 
those before him may be on a lower level where the memory is 
ever alert and suggestive. So far as it is humanly possible the 
judge should be placed beyond every suggestion or suspicion of 
bias. If he were nominated by a convention he would be very 
much farther, although not altogether, removed from this; but 
selecting himself as a candidate, and appealing to the people, 
he is subjected to every sort of obligation and entanglement in 
the primary. The field is open for every mediocre to become a 
candidate. It invites to the arts of the demagogue to gain a 
judgeship. It may easily lead eventually to the loss of fitness, 
ability and courage on the bench. 

It has been said of this matter by a great lawyer of nation¬ 
wide renown: “ Those ripest in wisdom are not willing to engage 
in a campaign where the arts of the demagogue and the use of 
money are such potential factors; and we must make up our 
minds that unless we withdraw our judicial nominations from 
these strenuous primaries, our judges, in time, will be our most 
skillful politicians rather than our most learned lawyers.” This 
law ought to be repealed. The presidential preference law should 
be repealed. The office of judge should be appointive. It is so 
in every country on earth but Switzerland and the United States 
and is so in eight of our states. 


Direct Primaries 


129 


National Conference on Practical Reform of Primary 

Elections. 1898: 96-8. 

Convention Plan. Roy 0. West. 

The arguments offered in this paper in behalf of the conven¬ 
tion method of nominating candidates for public office in the 
United States, rest upon the proposition that a political party is 
entitled to the benefit of the best thought of its best leadership. 
This truh is the more apparent now that campaigns are usually 
fought as contests between representatives of ideas, not as 
struggles between individuals. It is also conceded that, in gov¬ 
ernments like ours, public sentiment is generally expressed and 
always enforced through political parties. These parties must 
be free to govern themselves and alert to avail themselves of every 
partisan advantage. If parties have not the right to maneuver 
attacks and skillfully repel onslaughts, this paper is without pur¬ 
pose. If talented party leadership is not desirable, it were better 
that this paper be not read. If parties are to flounder about, 
aiming at nothing, they will surely achieve it. 

The masses have little idea and less concern as to the proba¬ 
ble issues of a campaign. They are influenced by personal con¬ 
siderations rather than by party welfare. If party leaders, of 
undoubted integrity, sagacity, and loyalty desire a nomination to 
be made, they are powerless. Likewise they cannot prevent bad 
and unwise nominations. They cannot reach the ear of each voter, 
were it not ludicrous to confide political secrets to the public. 
There could be no responsible head. The party could not ex¬ 
press and do its own will. It would be limited in its choice of 

candidates. 

It would be possible for voters who subscribed to other po¬ 
litical faiths to influence the actions of parties, of which they 
were not members. 

It is probably true that outside influences are equally potent 
in the selection of delegates to conventions. But rational primary 
laws, such as the Illinois General Assembly is now considering, 
will reduce this danger to a minimum. Moreover delegates are 
known, their names are published; they are responsible to their 


D. P.—5 


130 


University of Kentucky 


neighbors who elected them. Delegates are often instructed for 
whom to vote. Seldom do they violate those instructions. If 
they do, a new “machine” is apt to be a feature of that partic¬ 
ular district at the next convention. 

The convention affords the greatest possible latitude for 
choosing nominees. At the primaries, there is no limit as to the 
number of different delegate tickets which can be voted. If any 
citizen is dissatisfied with the list of delegates named on any or 
all tickets, he has the right to print a ticket of his own, vote it 
and get for it a majority of all the votes cast, if he can; or he has 
the privilege of erasing names and inserting others. Manifestly, 
the successful delegate ticket will be the one on which appear the 
names of the most representative, best known and most active 
members of the party. It ought to be so. They do the work. 
They should have a voice in the party councils. These men are 
invariably leaders of thought and action in their immediate lo¬ 
calities. Delegates from different sections differ as do their re¬ 
spective constituencies. A delegate from the tenement and lodg¬ 
ing house district could not secure credentials in the boulevard 
district any easier than the so-called ‘ ‘ silk stocking ’ ’ could obtain 
a majority in some of the down-town wards. People like to be 
represented by officials who worship at the same altars, speak the 
same language, live in the same community and in the same man¬ 
ner. In a convention, these considerations receive proper at¬ 
tention. The leaders of the party consult these conflicting in¬ 
terests and a ticket satisfactory to a majority is agreed upon. 
The party can govern itself. It is a powerful, well controlled 
engine. With a direct vote, one class, or one race or one sect may 
prevail to the disadvantage of the party and the injury of the 
people. 

What is said against nominating conventions ? It is said the 
great body of electors do not vote. They do when public interests 
excite their attention; otherwise they would fail to vote under 
any system. “They do not know where the primary polling 
places are. ’ ’ Let them learn to read the English language if they 
do not know it and then read the call for the convention published 
in the newspapers. It is said that ballot boxes are stuffed, re- 


Direct Primaries 


131 


turns falsified and voters slugged. Let the criminal laws be en¬ 
forced. They are sufficient. The same crimes have been com¬ 
mitted again and again under the direct vote system. Another 
argument is that delegates are bought. The classes of men who 
are delegates are less subject to financial inducements than thou¬ 
sands of illiterate and degenerate voters, who control under the 
direct vote system and who can be purchased for a “drink .” 
Finally it is said that on a delegate ticket the voter is confronted 
with names, with which he is not familiar. If citizens are so 
exclusive and have so little patriotism that they do not know their 
neighbors and the chief men in the few election precincts com¬ 
prising their primary districts, they ought not to have any voice 
in public affairs. Good citizens owe it to their country to mani¬ 
fest some interest in the public and the public needs. 

During the years, our proud nation has grown and become 
more powerful. Our cosmopolitan population has been happy 
and prosperous. Conventions have nominated and the people 
have elected wise and patriotic rulers. Some mistakes have been 
made. They have always been corrected. In times of financial 
depression and unrest, conscientious and well meaning gentle¬ 
men, reenforced by discredited politicians, who hoped to ride 
again into power on a popular wave, have always seen the dark 
side of the picture, have proposed impracticable schemes to 
remedy evil, and, by inflaming the public mind, have enlisted 
many followers. With returning prosperity, the armies of unem¬ 
ployed being engaged again in the marts of trade, these generals 
have found themselves deserted by their soldiery. It will happen 
again. And, with the selection of delegates to conventions 
guarded by careful laws, this republic will continue to lead the 
way and our people will continue to be secure in “life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness. 

Literary Digest. 39: 330-2. September 4, 1909. 

Value of Direct Primaries in Doubt. 

An original turn in the contest over direct primaries in New 
York state has accentuated the fact that the subject is of national 
interest. The great difficulty in judging results appears to be in 


132 


University of Kentucky 


determining whether seeming failures indicate defects in indi¬ 
vidual laws or the impracticability of the system in general. 

Perhaps the most quoted utterance in derogation of the plan 
is that of the Indianapolis, News, which, as a former advocate, 
confesses its disappointment over the operation of direct pri¬ 
maries in its home city. Says The News : 

Here we brought about the nomination of some good men for 
county offices a year ago, but we used occasionally to nominate some 
good men by the old method. Today we have five candidates for 
mayor, not one of whom measures up to the standard which it was 
supposed we should reach under the direct primary. It is admitted 
on all hands that if the new machinery is retained we shall have to 
do something to limit expenditures, or else throw' them on the public. 
For as things are now we have in effect two elections, two campaigns, 
and as a consequence two large outpourings of money. This of course 
would be a small price to pay if the results were what it was supposed 
they would be. But they are not, or at least they have not been so far. 
The good men who it was predicted w r ould “come out,” do not do so. 
The necessity of making two campaigns, of contributing to two cam¬ 
paign funds, and of twice submitting to the importunities of the 
“heelers,” undoubtedly increases the reluctance of representative citi¬ 
zens to offer themselves. 


Similarly the Baltimore American testifies that in Baltimore 
under a like system. 

The election was a costly one to the city. It necessitated an outlay 
of approximately $40,000. As about 14,000, or a little over 12 per cent, 
of the registered vote was polled every vote cast cost the city about 
$2.85. . . . 

The Democrats made the better showing for the reason that they 
drummed out every office holder comeatable. As there are 5,000 of 
these employed by the city alone and quite a number in the state offices, 
it is not suprizing that they should have given a better account of 
themselves than the Republicans. The Democratic organization also 
put out a little money to stir up the workers, $5 being allotted to each 
precinct. 

Yet on the other hand, Governor Stubbs, of Kansas, is 
quoted as informing the New York Commission that, while be¬ 
fore the primary election law of that state went into effect the 


Direct Primaries 


133 


Republican party of Kansas was controlled by an oligarchy of 
bosses in the interest of corporations, now, through the operation 
of the law: 

The power has been taken out of the hands of those few men who 
formerly dictated the list of candidates and made the platform. It 
is a requirement for success in seeking public office in Kansas now for 
a man to prove himself honest and capable and to have something of 
merit to offer to the people. A man to be nominated now must be 
worth while and offer something for the good of the state, instead of 
his chief qualification being whether or not he can be handled. 

Also, the Chicago Post makes merry over the recollection that 
the New York Commission “which is here looking for weak spots 
in the direct primary system does not seem to have received much 
aid and comfort from the Chicago men who addressed it. ’ ’ As for 
these Chicago men, it appears: 

They not only insisted that the system had worked out substan¬ 
tially as its advocates thought, but their tart retorts to the somewhat 
adverse comments of the New Yorkers had the great merit of being 
sound as well as witty. Here, for instance, was a fair tit-for-tat: 

“In Wisconsin under the direct primary,” said Judge Knapp, “the 
people elected to the United States Senate, over younger, abler, but 
poorer men, a millionaire eighty-two years of age. In New York under 
the old system the legislature the same year elected to the Senate Elihu 
Root.” 

“Well,” said Professor Merriam, “the primary system in Wisconsin 
gave that state Senator La Follette and the old system in New York 
gave that state Senator Platt.” 

In the recent primary elections of San Francisco, The Chron¬ 
icle of that city finds “much that is encouraging and much that 
is unfortunate,” but apparently the worst features are partly 
due to the fact “there is an uncomfortably large element in the 
city which is reckless and shameless in casting its vote, ’ ’ and this 
element can hardly be eliminated by the primary law. 






Some Definitions 













I 





I 





















































































Direct Primaries 


137 


DEFINITIONS 

It must be understood that the primary system, whether we 
mean direct or indirect primary, is a system used by a political 

party. 

The purpose of a primary is to select a candidate or candi¬ 
dates for a particular political party. 

In Kentucky, the law provides that all political parties must 
hold their direct primaries on the same day. The day set by 
the law is the first Saturday of August of each year. But the 
fact must not be lost sight of that primaries are party functions. 
People who do not belong to parties have absolutely no more 
part in a Republican primary than people who are not Masons in 
a Masonic conclave. 

It is true that Democrats sometimes slip in and vote in a 
Republican primary and Republicans sometimes vote in a Dem¬ 
ocratic primary. But such action is not countenanced either in 
law or in party by-laws. 

Open and Closed Primaries .—Some states have what is 
known as “open primaries.’’ In such a case all parties use the 
same ballot. When a legal voter enters the polls he merely asks 
for a ballot. He may take the ballot and vote in the primary of 
either party he chooses. 

Kentucky as well as a number of other states, has what is 
known as a “closed primary.” In that case the voter entering 
the polls must tell the name of the party of which he is a mem¬ 
ber and if the election officers are satisfied that he is a member 
of the party in which he seeks to vote he is given a ballot of such 
party. For example, if he is a Democrat he will receive a Demo¬ 
cratic ballot. After he has voted, his ballot is put in the Demo¬ 
cratic ballot box. 

On the face of it the closed primary seems to violate the 
principle of the secrecy of the ballot because the voter must an¬ 
nounce the party to which he belongs and if it is doubted that 
he belongs to that party he may be required to swear that he 
voted for the candidates of that party in the last general election. 


138 


University of Kentucky 


But on the other hand, those who argue for the closed ballot 
argue with some justice that a primary is strictly a party elec¬ 
tion and they have the right to bar from participation in such 
election ‘duke warm” voters who do not support the party 
“ticket” in the regular election. 

These are the facts in the case; the debaters may use them 
in any way they see fit. The author does not undertake to say 
which is the true primary principle and which is the false. In the 
United States at large, the open primary seems to be more gen¬ 
erally used. 

Democracy .—This word is very much overworked. It has 
been applied to so many and varied situations that it almost de¬ 
fies definition. In its origin it meant rule by the people, but in 
addition to the United States, Great Britain, Russia, France and 
Mexico are usually referred to as democratic governments. One 
authority said recently that the word had lost all meaning it ever 
had and deteriorated into a sugar stick that makes us feel good 
every time it is hurled at us. If debaters use the word very ex¬ 
tensively they should explain their meaning. 

Republic .—In America we have applied the word republic 
to a government governed by the people through their represen¬ 
tatives. A republic and a democracy are often used inter¬ 
changeably, because a democracy in modern times is a rule by 
the people through representatives. 

Political Party .—Kentucky statutes define a political party 
as an organization of voters representing a political policy and 
having a constituted authority for its government and regula¬ 
tion and must have cast at least two per cent of the total vote 
in the last presidential election. 

Republican and Democratic Parties .—From the definition 
given above it can be seen that there is little or no significance in 
the names which our two major parties have adopted. Nothing 
would be gained by trying to argue that one stood for rule by 
the people and the other for rule by representatives, because the 
claim is not sound. 


Direct Primaries 


139 


Voter and Citizen .—These two words should not be confused. 
All Americans who are native born or have been naturalized are 
citizens but only about half of them are voters. Citizens under 
21 years of age, convicts, imbeciles, idiots, Chinese and most 
aliens are excluded from voting. But in some states aliens have 
been allowed to vote shortly before they become citizens. 

Slate .—A faction of a party may get together and make up a 
list of candidates, one for each office, which they try to elect by 
combining the support of each individual on the slate. 

Dark Horse .—A person nominated at the eleventh hour in a 
convention, usually as a compromise candidate when the two or 
three leading candidates have the convention deadlocked. 

Boss .—A person who wields a strong influence over the party 
by underhand methods. 

Machine .—A close organization within a party which wields 
the dominant influence in the party policy. The “boss” is said 
to run the machine. Therefore, when ‘‘machine” is mentioned 
one usually has the feeling that a ruthless force is dominating 
the organization. The word really does not admit of definition. 
Its component parts are usually a boss, a coterie of office holders 
and a ring of corrupt corporations or individuals who furnish 

the money to make it go. 

Steam Roller .—When the machine is in operation in a con¬ 
vention or a legislature it is sometimes referred to as a “steam¬ 
roller” because it smashes all who stand in its path. 

Independent. —A person who does not belong to either party. 
He has no place in the primary system of nominations. 

Short Ballet .—Stated briefly, the short ballot principle is 
to select only one or two of the important officers by popular vote 
and hold them responsible for the conduct of affairs. For ex¬ 
ample, if we had the short ballot in Kentucky the people would 
only be asked to vote for one state officer, the Governor. He 
would be allowed to appoint his cabinet and all of his other offi- 


140 


University of Kentucky 


cers. But he would be held absolutely responsible for the con¬ 
duct of affairs. The practice generally known as “ passing the 
buck” is thereby done away with. 

Direct Primary .—By the direct primary system of nomina¬ 
tions for candidates, we understand that each legal voter in a 
political party is given an opportunity to cast his ballot directly 
for a candidate for a particular office in his party. 

Indirect Primary .—By the indirect primary or convention 
system the voter votes for a representative of his party. These 
representatives, in theory at least, select the party nominee. 
There are variations, however. Sometimes the voters select a pre¬ 
cinct representative. The precinct representatives of the entire 
country hold meetings and select county representatives. The 
county representatives may assemble in their congressional dis¬ 
trict and select a delegate for the national convention. 


Bibliography 








































Direct Primaries 


143 


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

No attempt is made to give an exhaustive bibliography on this 
subject. Our chief purpose is to mention several works by authorita¬ 
tive authors who have studied and criticised our government. There 
is a wealth of material that has been written pro and con on the sub¬ 
ject of primaries, direct and indirect. Some of this material is the 
result of long study. Much of it, on the other hand, is the outburst 
of the feelings of the individual, the latter being worthless to the 
debater. We have attempted merely to mention standard works. 
If the debater should want to go more deeply into the field, he will 
find exhaustive bibliographies in almost any of the text books which 
we have mentioned below on almost every phase of the nominating 
system. A fuller bibliography may be had on request from the De¬ 
partment of University Extension. 

Beard, Charles Austin—American Government and Politics. Mac¬ 
millan. A text book on American Government. 

Bryce, James—American Commonwealth. A study of American 
Government. 

Ostrogorstki—American Democracy. A criticism of American 
Government. 

Hall, A. B.—Popular Government. Deals with the expression of 
the public will. 

Ford, Henry Jones—Rise and Growth of American Politics. 

Willoby and Rogers—Introduction to Political Science. 

United States. Library of Congress. List of References on 
Primary Elections. Particularly Direct Primary. 1905. 

United States. Library of Congress. Select List of References 
on Corrupt Practices in Elections. 1908. 

Merriam, Charles Edward. Primary Elections: A Study of the 
History and Tendencies of Primary Election Legislation. Second 
Edition. Chicago 1909. 

Meyer, Ernst Christopher. Nominating Systems. 

National Conference on Practical Reform of Primary Elections. 
N. Y. 1898. 

National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1906. 

New York. Report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and As¬ 
sembly of the State of N. Y. 

Vermont, Legislative Reference Bureau. Direct Primaries. 

United States. Library of Congress. List of References on Pri¬ 
mary Elections. Particularly Direct Primaries. 1905. 

United States. Library of Congress. Select List of References on 

Corrupt Practices in Elections. 1908. 

Citizens Union. Direct Primary Nominations: Why They Should 
be Adopted for New York. New York. 1909. 


144 


University of Kentucky 


Very thorough survey of the history of primary regulations and 
legislation for direct primaries. It summarizes the judicial inter¬ 
pretation of primary election legislation and the practical working 
of the direct primary system. The appendices contain: reprints of 
typical laws in Illinois, New York, Florida, Wyoming, Iowa and Wis¬ 
consin; a summary of present laws; bibliography; list of important 
cases; and list of primary laws enacted. 

Meyer, Ernst Christopher. Nominating Systems: Direct Primaries 
versus Convention in the United States. Madison, Wisconsin. 1902. 
Part 2, Direct Primary Legislation in the United States. Part 3. An an¬ 
alysis of the Main Arguments for and against the Direct Primary. 

National Conference on Practical Reform of Primary Elections. 
New York. 1898. (Printed by W. C. Hollister, Chicago, 1898.) 

Contents—Legalization of the Primary, John R. Commons; New 
Orleans Machine, Walter C. Flower; Kentucky Direct Primaries, Ed¬ 
ward J. McDermott; Pennsylvania Primary Elections, Clinton Rogers 
Woodruff; Caucus Laws of Massachusetts, Richard L. Gay; Illinois 
Primary Law, George F. Rush; Regulations of Primaries, George L. 
Record; Convention Plan, Roy O. West; Crawford County Plan in 
Cleveland, Thomas L. Johnson; Boston’s Party Caucus, Josiah Quincy; 
Proposed New York Legislation, Edward Lauterbach, John Ford, W. 
R. Spooner, William H. Hotchkiss; Wisconsin Primary System, Charles 
E. Monroe; California Primary Reform, F. S. Stratton; Missouri 
Primary History, William Flewellyn Saunders. 

National Municipal League, Proceedings. 1906. Pages 445-53. Dis¬ 
cussion on Nominations. 

New York Report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and As¬ 
sembly of the State of New York, Appointed to Investigate Primary 
and Elections Laws of this and Other States. 1910. 

The report was adverse to direct nominations. The committee 
claimed that the direct nomination schemes were still in an experi¬ 
mental stage and that there was a wide diversity of opinion among 
wise and patriotic citizens as to their desirability as a means of se¬ 
lecting candidates for elective offices. New York Senate. Report of 
Special Committee of Senate on Primary Law. Submitted with Bill to 
Establish State Wide Judicial Conventions. March 1, 191S. 

Vermont. Legislative Reference Bureau. Direct Primaries. Mont¬ 
pelier. 1914. 


PART II. 
Hints to Debaters 


s 








Direct Primaries 


147 


Hints to Debaters 

The following suggestions are intended for those who wish 
to know just how to proceed in preparing a question for debate 
and who may not have access to other sources of information. 
Some space is devoted to the conduct of the debate itself and a 
certain ethical code involved. 

Students who desire a fuller discussion of debating are re¬ 
ferred to the following books: 

The Theory and Practice of Argumentation and Debate, V. A. 
Ketcham, published by the Macmillan Company, New York City. 

Argumentation and Debating, William T. Foster, published by 
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 

Argumentation and Debate, J. Walter Reeves, Published by D. 
C. Heath and Company, Chicago, Illinois. 

The first two books are standard college texts on the sub¬ 
ject. Foster’s text is perhaps the most complete. Reeves’ book 
is an excellent handbook for high school use. 

The first and most important step after you have received 
the statement of the proposition is to analyze it. By that is 
meant the separation or division of the proposition into its es¬ 
sential parts and the exclusion from your consideration of all 
non-essential points or those outside of the specific statement 
of the proposition. To be able to do this, you must understand 
what the proposition means. Do not be contented with a vague, 
indefinite idea, but get a definite grasp of the subject for de¬ 
bate. It may be necessary to use the dictionary for the mean¬ 
ings of individual words; a careful study of the history of the 
question may clear up the phrasing of the proposition. This re¬ 
quires reading from your bibliography, not for proof of any 
point—you are not ready for that—but for the historical back¬ 
ground of the subject which includes its origin, its development 
and progress and the reason for its discussion at the present 
time. 

However, as soon as you begin reading you should begin 
thinking. Your next step is to analyze the subject still further 


148 


University op Kentucky 


to find the issues or the essential points over which there is dis¬ 
agreement. This step which leads to the issues is by far the 
most important and the most difficult one because here you de¬ 
termine what the points are you must prove. If you overlook 
one essential point or leave it out of your consideration alto¬ 
gether thru careless and faulty analysis, you are doomed to be¬ 
come the prey of all opponents who have taken the measure of 
your weakness. Too much care cannot be taken to be sure that 
you have drawn from the mass of your reading about the ques¬ 
tion the essential points in dispute. As noted above, this think¬ 
ing about your issues should begin with your reading. For, in 
the origin and history of the question, they are revealed. 

Meanwhile, as you read, all evidence which may have a 
direct or an indirect bearing upon the debates should be re¬ 
corded and saved for future reference. 

Valuable time will be saved and a great amount of extra 
work as well, if the debater will follow a systematic method in 
his preparation. Making a record of evidence is perhaps the 
most important part of a systematic study. 

If high school debaters are weak in any one thing, it is the 
lack of proof or evidence to support the statements offered. 
Many times debates consist of unsupported assertions. The high 
school student apparently is of the opinion that if he believes 
that a thing is true and asserts that it is true, then it must be 
so. As a result, debates often degenerate to the ridiculous posi¬ 
tion of the two small boys who argue, “ ’Tis!” “ ’Taint!” Such 
argument supported only with the reason popularly attributed 
to women, “because,” which is not confined to their sex alone, 
will always go down before an array of facts and indisputable 
proof. Therefore, it is most essential that the debater have proof 
for his statements. 

Proof consists of evidence of which there are two kinds: 
(1) evidence from fact, and (2) evidence from authority. The 
former is more difficult to get, while the latter is less reliable 
and therefore more easily overthrown. A fact is a statement 
of a condition or situation which is commonly recognized or ac- 


Direct Primaries 


149 


cepted as true. ‘ ‘ The price of admission to the football game 
this afternoon is fifty cents” is a fact recognized and accepted 
by all the students. They would expect to have to pay that 
amount if they attended and would actually do so. 

There are many facts surrounding every debatable ques¬ 
tion, but the proposition itself is an assertion which requires the 
support of facts to stand as a fact itself. Since it is a debat¬ 
able question with the affirmative and negative about equally 
balanced, it is very improbable that the proposition can ever be 
established as a fact, at least during the progress of a single 
debate. However, if later the thing proposed, for example, ad¬ 
justed compensation, is passed because the great majority of the 
people think it should be done, then the proposition is no longer 
debatable and is an established fact as long as the greater num¬ 
ber of people recognize and accept it. But questions of right 
and justice, of policy or expediency can not be established as 
absolute and incontrovertible facts because they must of neces¬ 
sity be confined to the limits of human experience. Later ex¬ 
perience may prove our former conclusions all wrong. For ex¬ 
ample, suppose the soldiers are granted adjusted compensation; 
later experience may show that it was a mistake and disprove 
the conclusion which up to that time had been accepted as a 
fact. Our principles of democratic government are but theories 
accepted by us as sound and true because as far as our experi¬ 
ence goes, they have proved more satisfactory than any other. 
A fact differs from a theory in that it is a condition the truth 
of which can be tested by finite experience. Such evidence is 
indisputable proof to support debatable points, but it is obvious 
that all the facts in the case must come into consideration. 

Every debatable question has two sides. There is some 
strength and some weakness in each position or the question is 
not debatable. The debater’s problem is to find that strength 
and that weakness in a sincere attempt to arrive at the truth. 
Do not be a coward and try to evade the issue or to argue be¬ 
side the point or to beg the question. A debater begs the ques¬ 
tion when he consciously or unconsciously attempts to intro- 


150 


University of Kentucky 


duce into his argument as a point of proof an assertion which 
requires proof under the guise of an accepted fact. For ex¬ 
ample, in the adjusted compensation argument, if an affirma¬ 
tive speaker argued that the soldier should be given an option 
of cash, vocational training or farm and home aid and gives as 
his reason that the government has a moral obligation to the 
soldier without first having proved that moral obligation, he is 
begging the question. For he ignores the debatable nature of 
his reason and attempts to put an unproved assertion over as a 
recognized fact 

To evade the issue is to attempt to dodge a difficult point 
by “stalling” or “beating around the bush,” or by intention¬ 
ally ignoring an essential argument of an opponent. 

To argue beside the point is to devote the greater part of 
your argument to a minor or non-essential point. This may be 
a means of evasion or it may be due to faulty analysis. 

Another common fault of inexperienced debaters is to 
argue in circles. It is the result of illogical thinking or the 
inability to see the relationship of cause and effect. It is very 
often prima facie evidence of insincere preparation, but some¬ 
times it is due to poor reasoning. Just what is meant may be 
made clear by means of an example. Should a debater argue that 
adjusted compensation should be granted to soldiers because it 
is a moral obligation of the Government because adjusted com¬ 
pensation should be given them, he would be arguing in a cir¬ 
cle for he comes back to the point from which he started. 

All of these things are commonly found in high school de¬ 
bates and, indeed, in many collegiate contests. If used intention¬ 
ally they are dishonorable and tho used unwittingly at times 
they defeat the real purpose of the debate—namely, to arrive at 
the truth. 

In order to do that, there must be a direct clash of argu¬ 
ment. If the proposition has been analyzed correctly, there 
must be a direct clash of horn on horn. For, in a clearly 
worded proposition, there can be but one correct interpretation, 
one sound analvsis, certain well-defined issues. 

t/ 7 


Direct Primaries 


151 


Aside from being unsportsmanlike and dishonorable, side 
stepping and unsupported assertion are unnecessary. A debater 
who knows his subject has nothing to fear or to lose by meeting 
squarely his opponent’s argument. For, as has been pointed 
out, there is some strength and some weakness to his case. If 
that is not true he is to be pitied and the one who selected the 
question is to be blamed. The debater’s job is not to ignore the 
strength of the opponent’s argument, but to seek out its weak¬ 
ness, at the same time fortifying himself in the strength of his 
own case and preparing himself to defend its weakness. 

Many debaters experience the difficulty of not being able to 
see anything left of their own case after an opponent has pre¬ 
sented his argument. The opponent seems to have all the strength 
and the faint heart all of the weakness. Such a mental and moral 
attitude is the result of one of two things; either the debater 
has not anticipated the strength of the other side of the case as 
any careful student of the question ought to have done, or he is a 
natural coward and lacks the fighter’s spirit, the grit and de¬ 
termination to stand his ground and wait for an opportunity to 
launch a counter attack and thrust at his opponent’s weakest 
front. However, such a boy or girl who is handicapped by a 
non-assertive spirit need not despair. Face your weakness hon¬ 
estly and squarely and make up your mind that you are going to 
win out. Determination is half the battle. The other fellow may 
be in as hard a position as you are. There must be a point that 
he has overlooked, where his defense is weak. Find it out and 
press your advantage. 

One word of caution, however. Determination does not 
mean stubbornness nor merely arguing for the sake of argu¬ 
ment. These are dangerous pitfalls lying in wait for the de¬ 
bater. Do not be like the man in the rhyme, “Convince a man 
against his will—he holds the same opinion still.” Be frank 
and ready to admit the truth of convincing argument. If it 
is sound, there is no use in battering out your brains in unsuc¬ 
cessful assault. That shows poor judgment, always the case 
when an individual is ruled by a stubbornness which has no 


152 


University of Kentucky 


name for defeat. The debater will gain his point and achieve 
success by conserving his energies and devoting his argument 
to the strength of his case. Admit the strength of that part of 
an opponent’s argument which is strong enough to stand and 
waste no time upon it. Turn to another point and direct your 
attack as the skillful quarterback would do in directing his of¬ 
fensive against the opposing football team. 

Do not be dominated by prejudice and argue just for the 
sake of argument in order to defend your own unfounded and 
ungrounded opinions. Approach every question with an open 
mind, picking out the wheat from the chaff. 

If that is the debater’s attitude, the question of which side 
he shall take will not arise because, after all, he is looking for the 

truth. Nevertheless, it is often advisable to take the side of 

/ 

the case toward which your opinions and sympathies tend. How¬ 
ever, many debaters who approach a question with honesty and 
sincerity will change their opinions and sympathies before pro¬ 
gressing far and will ask to be permitted to uphold the op¬ 
posite side. 

First, record all the facts you come across that may be of 
use to you later. 

The other kind of evidence is the testimony of authorities. 
An authority is a man who has expert knowledge upon a particu¬ 
lar subject so that his opinions are respected and even accepted 
as final. In the courtroom, there are two kinds of cases: one 
the truth of which can be established by the testimony of eye¬ 
witnesses and the other where eye-witnesses are lacking and so- 
called “circumstantial” evidence must be relied upon. In the 
former, the question in dispute is settled by introducing facts 
which bear directly upon the case, the things which people 
heard and saw; in the latter, the circumstances and facts which 
may have an indirect bearing upon the case are introduced and 
by piecing them together (reasoning about them) an attempt 
is made to find the truth and to arrive at a decision. 

The requirements of most debate questions are those of the 
last named type. Most of the available facts have but an in- 



Direct Primaries 


153 


direct relation to the question so that the debater is compelled 
to establish his case by reasoning about the available facts or 
by referring to authority. Just as a physician is often sum¬ 
moned into the courtroom to give his medical opinion or the re¬ 
sults of his examination and diagnosis, so the financial expert 
and many others are called into a debate to give expert testi¬ 
mony. The problem that confronts the debater here is the ob¬ 
taining of testimony from a man who is recognized and gener¬ 
ally accepted as an authority upon the particular question. For 
just as it is necessary to learn your facts from a reliable source, 
from a witness that people will believe, so it is essential to pro¬ 
duce the opinion of an authority whose position is unquestion¬ 
able. 

Here are a few tests to put to all evidence submitted by 
so-called authorities: 

1. Is the man known and recognized as an authority on 
this particular subject? 

2. Is he in a position to know all the facts? 

3. Is he fair-minded or prejudiced ? 

4. Does he contradict himself? 

5. Is he inconsistent? 

6. Is he radical or conservative? 

7. Is he used as an authority for the opposite side of the 
case? 

8. Are his motives pure ? 

9. Is he influenced by the pressure of wealth, politics or 
fame ? 

10. Is he merely trying to be popular? 

11. Are his statements ambiguous or direct and forceful? 

12. Does he reveal all the facts or does he ignore or conceal 
some things? 

In your reading on the subject, asking these questions will 
help to give you a correct estimate of the worth and weight of 
any man’s testimony. A great deal of what you read, there¬ 
fore, will be of no use to you as evidence except to acquaint you 
with the whole fund of information concerning the case. This 


154 


University of Kentucky 


knowledge may serve you well in refuting the argument of an 
opponent based upon such unreliable authority. As far as the 
recording of such evidence is concerned, you will have to use 
your own judgment. The best rule is to save anything which 
may later prove of use. But if you have the idea that anything 
that is printed is sacred and inviolable, dispell it forever from 
your mind. It is no more so than the spoken word. There¬ 
fore, everything that you read should be scrutinized with great 
care ; even this bulletin should be put to the same severe test. 

Reasoning 

However, the testimony of recognized authority is not con¬ 
vincing until it is fitted into the reasoning process as support 
for certain contentions, suppositions, and premises. After such 
evidence is introduced, nothing is proved until the debater 
points out the relationship of cause or effect which exists be¬ 
tween the bits of evidence. More debaters fail because of this 
one lack than any other single fault. The average debater 
realizes that he must quote the statements of some eminent man, 
but often he seems to believe that this is all that is required. 
But argument consists of a clearly defined process of growth or 
development, the bringing out of existing relationships between 
related groups of facts and the drawing of a conclusion. Each 
conclusion reached is larger than the one preceding, and rests 
upon it for support; each conclusion in turn is a step nearer 
the final conclusion, which is your proposition itself. Argument 
then is like a bridge and must be built up step by step, each step 
serving as a support for the superstructure that rises above it. 
This will become more clear in the discussion of the brief. First, 
however, reasoning ought to be defined and explained. 

Reasoning is the process or organizing facts into related 
groups, pointing out that relationship and drawing a conclus¬ 
ion. There are two kinds of reasoning, inductive and deductive. 
Induction is the process used when you want to establish a gen¬ 
eral law which will cover all the cases in a given class. This is 
done by accumulating a large number of facts on a subject, class* 


Direct Primaries 


155 


ifying them according to the relation which they bear to each 
other and from that relationship, formulating a general law. 
For example, in order to prove that the government has a moral 
obligation to adjust the compensation of all soldiers in all wars, 
it is necessary to assemble a very large group of facts on sepa¬ 
rate cases before the conclusion desired can be established as a 
general law. 

On the contrary, there are times when it is convenient to 
prove the fact in a particular case by applying an established 
law to it. This is reasoning by deduction. For example, after 
establishing the general law that the government has a moral 
obligation to adjust the compensation of all soldiers of all wars 
it is a simple step in deduction to the conclusion that the gov¬ 
ernment has a moral obligation to adjust the compensation of 
all veterans of the World War. (Q. E. D.) In other words, 
if the particular case in dispute, as adjusted compensation to 
soldiers in this last war, comes under the class to which a gen¬ 
eral law applies, then the application of that law to the case in 
dispute can be used to establish as a fact the contention ad¬ 
vanced. The important point to remember, however, is that 
the general law or principle used must be established beyond 
question and must be accepted by the majority of thinking 
people. Otherwise, the application of a false or unsupported 
law to a particular case does not prove anything. 

Fallacies in Reasoning 

Many errors creep into the reasoning of debaters, the one 
just mentioned being the most common. Next in prevalence, is 
that of jumping to conclusions, a common habit and weakness 
of human nature. This may be done in both the inductive and 
deductive process. In induction, errors of this kind arise either 
because of an insufficient number of facts or because we assume 
as a fact that which is merely hearsay or gossip. In deduc¬ 
tion, the same error arises when a debater tries to apply a gen¬ 
eral law to a class which does not come under its provisions or 
wffien he has insufficient proof for his particular case. For ex- 


156 


University of Kentucky 


ample, one might apply the general law that all bad boys should 
be punished, to a particular boy. You would reason that he is 
a bad boy and therefore he ought to be punished. But before 
your conclusion will stand you must convince us that he is a bad 
boy. Try to avoid these common errors in reasoning. 

Analogy 

Another kind of reasoning is that from analogy. An an¬ 
alogy is a known case which resembles an unknown case in all 
essential points so that a fact concerning the known case might 
be inferred concerning the case which has never been tried in 
actual experience. Many debatable propositions are of such a 
nature that our conclusions concerning practicability or whether 
they will work must be reached by inference. Inference de¬ 
pends largely for its support on a known case that is similar 
in all essential points and has worked. For example, you will 
find in the affirmative argument in the bulletin the story of two 
boys working for the same employer. That is an analogy to the 
situation which exists between the Federal Government and the 
soldier and his civilian brother. If the analogy is a real one, 
the essential points in both must be similar. If the two cases 
are dissimilar in any one essential point, then the analogy will 
not hold. This, also, is an error in reasoning which should be 
studiously avoided. 


Recording Evidence 

No doubt, the question arises, what is the most efficient 
method of recording evidence. The following is the most widely 
used method and, perhaps, offers more advantages than any 
other. Each bit of evidence is recorded on a separate card. For 
convenience in handling, these cards ought to be 3x5 inches. 
An inexpensive box can be obtained at any book store for filing 
them alphabetically for ready reference. They may be arranged 
according to subject or according to the point that they prove. 
Evidence for both affirmative and negative should be recorded 
by each debater and the cards may be separated later. That 


Direct Primaries 


157 


is the foremost advantage of tlie card system in that the proof 
may be arranged and rearranged in any order at any time with¬ 
out extra copying. Cards which contain discarded material 
may be thrown out at any time without disturbing the remain¬ 
der. The speaker with practice will find it convenient to read 
his evidence direct from the card rather than to memorize it. 
In refutation and rebuttal, it makes it possible for the debater 
to adjust his argument to the necessity of the moment and to 
draw upon any point he desires. 

The general heading or main point in the argument which 
the bit of evidence supports should be written in the upper left 
hand corner. The specific point or topic that is covered should 
be written opposite in the upper right corner. The source, the 
name of book or magazine, data, volume, page, etc., should be 
written across the bottom of .the card. The quotation itself 
should be prefaced by the name of the authority, his official 
position and the occasion of his utterance if that is advisable. 

The Brief 

The next step is the organization of the evidence. As you 
read, the issues should be analyzed in an effort to find out just 
what things have to be proved in order to prove the main point 
at issue. The brief or outline is a prime necessity to present 
graphically the successive steps in analysis. Analysis is the 
process of breaking a subject up into its units or essential parts. 
This is necessary in debate in order to get down to a point small 
enough to permit of adequate proof. If several of these smaller 
points can be proved, the whole case can be proved by tracing 
out the proper relationship which they bear to each other 
and to the main proposition. The problem is to find what 
those smaller points are and to establish a logical relationship 
of cause and effect with the main point at issue. In other words, 
the analysis of the issues for debate is the reasoning process 
reversed. 

Moreover, the brief is a graphic representation of the rela¬ 
tionship which exists .between the different steps in the argument. 


158 


University of Kentucky 


Consequently, the brief is worked out so that each sub-point be¬ 
comes the reason or the support in turn for each larger point un¬ 
til a point is reached which can be proved and supported by evi¬ 
dence either from fact or from authority. This relationship 
will be at once apparent when you examine the model brief on 
adjusted compensation. Then, when the debater presents his 
case he begins in the reverse order and proves the sub-point 
first, the proof of which supports his main point, which in turn 
supports his whole proposition. Thus, a debate is built up as a 
systematic structure resting upon a common foundation and de¬ 
pending for its total strength upon the soundness of each part 
as in the case of a steel bridge. 

Presenting the Debate 
Observe the following suggestions: 

1. Be sure to address the chairman before beginning your 
speech. 

2. Be courteous to the judges by addressing them, Honorable 
Judges. 

3. Address your opponents also. Use this order in opening, 
“Mr, Chairman, Honorable Judges, Worthy Opponents, 
Ladies and Gentlemen.” 

4. This formal address should be omitted before a rebuttal 
speech. 

5. Always refer to your opponents impersonally as “My 
worthy opponents.” 

6. Refer to your teammate in the same way, “the first speaker 
on the affirmative” or “my honorable colleague.” 

7. Be courteous to your opponents. Always act as a gentle¬ 
man or as a lady. 

8. Never be personal or make uncomplimentary comments 
upon your opponent’s manner of speaking, his stage pres¬ 
ence or his dress. You are not discussing your opponent 
but his argument. 


Direct Primaries 


159 


9. Be sparing in your use of sarcasm and ridicule. Be sure 
that it carries no offense to the opponent, any members of 
the audience or the judges. 

10. Strive to use tact rather than overbearing domination. 

11. Avoid dogmatic or bigoted statements or a manner which 
might be misinterpreted. 

12. Be considerate of the beliefs, prejudices and feelings of 
those present. 

13. Do not beg the question or evade the challenge of an op¬ 
ponent. 

* 

14. Do not let your desire to win the decision get ahead of your 
desire for sincerity and truth. It may mean your undoing. 

15. Stop immediately when time is called. You can avoid run¬ 
ning over by timing your speech in practice and by arrang¬ 
ing a system of warnings with your colleague or the time 
keeper. 

16. Do not depend upon high sounding oratory, but place your 
trust in simple, straightforward discussion and argument. 

17. An oratorical appeal may come at the end, but it should be 
brief and to the point. 

18. Never stop without a recapitulation and summary. Do not 
introduce new arguments in the summary. 

19. Each succeeding speaker after the first one should open his 
arguments with refutation of the argument of the preced¬ 
ing opponent. 

20. Never ignore an opponent’s argument or pass it up as of 
no consequence and go on with your constructive speech 
without devoting some attention to it. 

i 

21. Do not betray in your attitude at any time that you have 
the superior argument and that the decision is yours. Such 
cocksureness ruins an otherwise effective argument and may 
lose the decision for you. Besides, it shows poor manners 
to anticipate by look or act the decision of the judges. 


160 


University of Kentucky 


22. When the decision is announced, whether you have won or 
lost, immediately cross to your opponents and shake hands, 
congratulating them if they have won, expressing your ap¬ 
preciation of their efforts if they have lost. 

V 

Note : It is advisable to have the teams seated at separate 
tables upon the platform. The visiting team should be given 
the better .table. The affirmative usually takes the table on the 
speaker’s right. 













18 * 



fV i N 0 o 

& r , 0 o 't- 

. , * ^,0 5 ,1° ^ * 
s ' 


A 0 v * v * 0 r ‘c 
/V s r *«*£> % ^ 
£v <iS * > -' A o •/• 

v' T 1 a- ~ ' ■ ''•■-• '// A. 


</■ .\v w x 

; v s$ ° #w* * 

» §■ y ■* 

C 'O.K* V' 

0“ »'.#!,/, ^ • A C 

' 4 i V * ^ JS 

+ v 

r~ £ %. ^§./° > 0o ~ 4 

\ s o -t> / x - - N - 

■ s 7 


y * *r^> v 4 • 'A> ✓ ~ a v 

** .'A * ^ fc ' o L< N x' . 


*• v 

o 0 


* 

<- 


' -v 


/V,. ^A* 


'• * 'Kr C. • * K> 


i ■> <Ci 
e « s 


^ . 

y or# v * .\ A 



V. 


^ WII 

A 

J ■•“ *,%, -O' \ 1 

V.' 


- ^ :% 
^ xY 


> V U 


’c> * 


> «■ 


" 4 % / A ^ >4 \. ^ : 

^ s r § fe 2 / ^ v / 

; ; ^ - W # / cs ^ O 


/. 


■i 




I 


^ v s 

© cr 


Cyo 


y « * x * A ! 

[A ' fl 1 ' " k '<* A * 

0° *,■■'%,',% A .' 

: ‘io i -:A-' r>' ^ r 

^ V- i X- | *>■ 


I? o 



^ A©' 

'< N 0 y-v^* 


'V- 



/'V. . 

. V* 



* 4 

0 ^“ ,- 0 , C V| 

^ . T ,■V'*" 

ih -;mm°? 

* t ^%. -. 

o'? , >'» t -<s i .•»«, •’-- '"’ -' 

» X ,., : .-a 1 . 1 O ^_- ^ ^ 


X 

<$> *% ° 

» . ^>sr N - ^ ^ - t “KT> 

v V - 3 */ ,'' %0 



', ■" wywBjLjMr * ,\ 

r> x /.^W s \!» V 

// y s ^ 'O^ I 

»/> J - * * S *N. 

/^V » 


o 0 


A 



. ^ V 



¥ 41 s -► 

* > V- 

■—? , .. A \ ^^ '*^'*'\V V'V' J . 

--_ t- ' \ y <^.‘ (t. y <> -A) 

0 , "v * » ' '* ,\ V s s*“ , '-^- * ’ N" 5 -A 

\ -'+ v 'W, • 

| ", ^ ^ ‘ ^ ‘ 



’ ^0 -b ^ >r ' » s ^ ^ 'i 

I . > . 

•P, c.'^" ^ fA^f f <$' A-. ^ " : ‘ ' : V 4 ■> 

• * ^ - $ f 1 y - cS ’'*$* ® X// >^^Y^ x V 




17 y ° 
^ e \C :>V* 




^ ^-0, VI 

S^ * 

I UP ; _ 

S' A -i ■> S^SfSP * 

ov „: >4: ^ V 0 9 v V V;:; % H4 4 

m , •>. v - £t^>- * <P> A? - ^ ^ " 

71 , o o N • rr"-i^A •* A V 


s': %/Vs 4 :K';X^ 






* ; ’ y ' 

’°A '’* • I >*' A h .., '^. <r ', n'o ■’ N 0 ' 1 
C- V s s ',, > 

^ \ 7 
r> - 




-A . f- 

■<y r , 



<P 4 y. ^ 

\ ° ^ 


/ 


t ^ ^ 

^ ^ ° 





9^ %" * 0 /- % " 91 


4 o 0 X 

° *"4 */■ * 'f* 

>■ rv ^ ' \ 

T S Y# 

\ • s' 1 ' , y s 


* •■O /-> Ar 

A- c 


* aA A. 



A, ^ '>, y < 

V* -•/ a •- 























</ v 





4 " 4 
- 

O' y 


■ ■ ^ ^ '"T~:s .o'- 

' 1 * » Vi> C 0 * 0 * ~*b. * * .0^ „ * 

■* * S* * O 0 o 

A * ’JA A' *S A* • '%, / " 

A ^ T « Y o x 

N 0O x . . Q^ 1 ^ * * * 

* 


S’ 


*o« ^ <\ N , 'V X/ 
a\ 0 M c R * 0 



' 0 

, <A „\V> c 

'f •'£* • O »> 

i ^ A' ^ c 

■ > - A V 

% o O, , 




,\V </> 

v xX ^ 


. 0 N c 


o ' ^ V * 'V s' or 

x *o> c> v * 7 /, > ^0 * 

.. %. / *'■■ 

<J> <v - 9 L;J : - ^ - v 

e> Y. © y y/f jgVW' * ,Y '■?/> - YC" # ~ . V* Y*. 

,v ^ v - 7 ^ P ■' ^ 

_xV c ° Nc * '© ,0‘ v* )£*«*, 

* V> „V 




o v 





8 I ' 


V* 



■> n 0 ^ Y % " 

' * 0 / C* 

o -p 

r> \V> 

</* 0 \\ 
</' -\ v 


YY 


C,’ 


A> </» - > 

* Y Y * V 

v> 




* Y A- * 

<9* 



% 


fV Y ' " 
A > 



^ ’%. \ 



' '^V <°* c * 

> * 







V 7 S ^ 




* ^ / 






^ ' "-"^o 0 " C o 

'* N ° O- ^ ^ - O , '% 

- J& / A „ ^ 


a cV r ^ ° ^ ^ 

%f -ml”, 11 

<X A 

^ o v / 

v, ■%<' 

> .\1> * ^ A x 

y• / ' * * s v <° . \ >«* "V. 

O O x # ,, '3 s . A^ x 

W' r/r. ; - : +*■$ 

rJ- = • ^^4j: a 

^ *. '° ,*.;%/•. '* 

f' 



x' -■ 

- o^‘ 





■<* ^ % 


*>> ✓ x ,^ N 

t V , t) 

o N «, ^ "/ o * * s 0 > ■ V > a « 

f" \ ° ., v ' ?£<$&. 


f % i v 

s • 0' ^ 

' , V > fi « ^ 

\ - J . 


te 4 ^ 

< 4 ? 


S> 


" ,0 t o« 

f* V '^ v * 

■f s'. 4\ 

^ v- :* 


^ '*'<*+ X s \X X ^ 0° C 6 % 

"' 'v. v " .V .., % % 

■ “ ‘ ■? :i. SA\** 

- - -r V: 4 . 



# o s 

sjk & %To .a x ' o 
V v • i y: - i / * y z : 

.V* ^ 




^ %, 1 



<A 

.y ^ o %/, ■::' $: ^ ^/> 

, ^ .. : ^^ y ^ 


C .' 5 

♦ 'A‘ 

s x S ,0 V y 0,..v^ 

s / / '«» ’<5, A X o» - * o. 

r v ’ x ^ -P . ^ * _t<n * 

*-f t- ^ ‘ tf- 4 ' ' ■ s^_ \ 


i*P' x 


-\ v x 
^ r>* 


O o *» • Ai ■■' • -a V X - 

h -r, = x°°^. ^ ^ 

^ ^ v ^ c* Y"- V # v Y 

, _ Y * -, v» Y * >' t' Y s *«/ ' 

0 V'^ > aY *'*”% x x S ^/->Y- 

% i ^ ^ ' : ^ 

% 


,v> % V ; - ■ ■ •>' * 4 

V ■<• ft rf * 

^ 'o ^ 

«>'», <p A c 0 ' 


Y> 


^: / % W-* x 

Y° - 

\ \ *N, 


yC ** 



















































